REPORT OF THE SPOLIATION PANEL

Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report from the Right Honourable Sir David Hirst, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, in respect of four drawings now in the possession of the British Museum.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Personalised Learning

Jim Dobbin: At which children her policy of personalised learning in schools will be targeted; and if she will make a statement.

Ruth Kelly: All children can, and should, benefit from increasingly personalised learning. We have announced a total of £990 million of additional funding by 2007–08 for that purpose. All schools will receive extra funding, but we will target those facing the greatest challenges—schools with pupils from deprived backgrounds or with low prior attainment.

Jim Dobbin: In Heywood and Middleton, the local education authority intends to spend some of that money developing new technologies to help and support children at home, because some children have struggled in the transition from primary to secondary school. Is that the kind of project that the Secretary of State is willing to support?

Ruth Kelly: Yes, indeed. The project in Heywood and Middleton is innovative, and my hon. Friend is right to point to the difficulties that some children face in making the transition from primary school to secondary school. Alongside the funding for personalised learning, we have recently set out plans to invest £40 million in parent support advisers, specifically to enable secondary schools quickly to identify those children who face the greatest challenges and to work with them and their families in order to support them in secondary school. The scheme outlined by my hon. Friend is another interesting way to try to address those issues.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State help my constituents? A number of pupils have been left without any education for months on end, and I recently found out about a case in which a pupil was left for a year without any education. What measures will the Secretary of State take to improve the situation?

Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities will have a duty, which is set out in the Education and Inspections Bill, to identify all those children who are missing education and to provide them with an appropriate education and their families with a choice of education. He has made a very serious point; we   must tackle truancy, which may lead to children becoming completely disaffected. We must also provide opportunities for those children who have been excluded from school to have a decent and appropriate education, which is why our investment in pupil referral units is so important. We must continue to raise the quality of education provided in those units, so that pupils who are being educated in them achieve good results.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend take particular note of the research by the Institute for Public Policy Research on personalised learning and its effect on social mobility? Yesterday, we celebrated in the House of Commons the second anniversary of the launch of volunteer reading schemes. Both the research and the volunteer reading schemes indicate the importance of training intermediaries and we must ensure that we have the best qualified people in this country, whether they are volunteers or teachers, to make personalised learning work.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right. He must have read the speech that I made yesterday to the IPPR on social mobility, in which I drew attention to the fact that if we have catch-up lessons for those children who start to fall behind and push to their maximum potential those children who demonstrate real ability in the classroom through genuine personalised learning, we can make a significant difference to not only the number of children who obtain five good GCSEs, but the progress that children make later in life, which relates to social mobility. He is also right to draw attention to the potential of reading schemes in primary school and later. The research conducted on reading recovery is powerful, but so is the evidence on synthetic phonics, which is why we have emphasised that children should be taught synthetic phonics first and fast, which will not only improve the quality of reading, but help to close the class gap.

World Skills Championship

Angela Smith: What support her Department will be giving to the world skills championship to be held in 2011; and if she will make a statement.

Phil Hope: Hosting the world skills championship in London will offer world skills a global stage, and it will also bring economic and social rewards to the UK. The brochure links world skills 2011 with the 2012 Olympics. That link between excellence in sport and excellence in skills forms a unique offer to world skills, and it will help us to change public attitudes in this country about skills. I should add that the Government are match funding and underwriting the whole event.

Angela Smith: I am sure that the whole House will join the Minister in hoping that the UK bid triumphs in Melbourne in May. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what role he thinks that world skills 2011 could play in meeting the distinctive skills needs of each region of the UK?

Phil Hope: I attended the world skills championship in Finland last year. It was genuinely inspiring as we saw young people competing to demonstrate their skills at the highest level, benchmarking themselves against the rest of the world. I hope that we have full support across this House for our bid to host the championship. Whatever the result in Melbourne on 10 May, we intend to re-energise skills competitions over the next five years so that we really celebrate success. We are going to create a new framework at local, regional, national and international levels to ensure that we raise the profile of skills, raise aspirations and improve supply. In Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and all the English regions, we can target skills competitions around skills needs in the different regions and nations of this country.

John Hayes: We welcome the bid to stage the world skills championship. However, the Minister knows that, as the leaked report has shown, Britain faces a skills crisis, particularly a language skills crisis. A Secondary Heads Association survey reveals that the number of post-14 pupils studying languages is plummeting and only a fifth of 15-year-olds now study a foreign language. A Government-sponsored report shows that Britain is bottom of the class in Europe for language skills—28th out of 28 countries. In Olympic terms, the Minister is the Eddie the Eagle of language skills. Given that failure, in what specific ways did the Government take account of language skills when designing the new vocational diplomas?

Phil Hope: The Education and Inspections Bill, which the hon. Gentleman and I are currently discussing as we take it through Parliament, will give us the opportunity to discuss the future of the national curriculum, including the importance that the Government place on encouraging young people to take up language opportunities, not least in primary schools as well as secondary schools, and to make modern foreign languages attractive and interesting for young people across the piece.
	I want to emphasise that if we succeed in our bid to host the world skills championship, which will attract representatives from 45 countries from across the world to London, young people from Newham will act as volunteers, teaming up with each country's team of young people to provide them with a tailor-made service, including being able to speak to them and support them in the languages of their nations. That is because we have such a rich cultural diversity of young people and nations in our capital city of London.

Extended Schools

Helen Goodman: What progress she is making with her proposals for extended schools; and if she will make a statement.

Beverley Hughes: More than 6,000 schools are engaged with the extended schools development programme. The strong engagement of schools and local authorities means that we are making good progress towards our target of all schools offering access to extended services by 2010. The early evaluation that we have carried out demonstrates that extended services can have a positive impact on the attendance and motivation of pupils, enhance children's and families' access to services and, if well managed, relieve pressure on teachers' workloads.

Helen Goodman: I am most grateful to the Minister for that report on the excellent progress that is being made on the extended schools programme. Every day, children need the opportunity to play and to relax. Is she aware of the work being done by the National Association of Toy and Leisure Libraries to encourage games clubs in schools, with lots of ideas for outdoor games, card games and board games—every kind of possibility—and what is she doing to support such activities?

Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend that particularly, but not exclusively, for young children, play is a very important part of the concept of extended activities in schools. Indeed, the prospectus that we published made it clear that we want play to be an important aspect. Children should not just have study support and curriculum-focused activities at the end of the day; we want them to relax and unwind in a secure and stimulating environment. Schools will be talking to parents and children as they plan what is required for their extended activities, and I am sure that parents will want that to happen. Because extended schools activities are about working in partnership with other organisations, and not schools doing it themselves, I am sure that the National Association of Toy and Leisure Libraries will have a big part to play in ensuring that extended activities can include play.

Sarah Teather: The Minister will be aware of the Headspace survey that suggested that 37 per cent. of head teachers had no intention of offering the extended schools scheme. Does she think that that might be because the money provided by the Government is enough only to pay for one extra teacher per school?

Beverley Hughes: No, I do not. We are on a journey with extended schools. As I said, more than 6,000 schools are working with us directly to provide extended services. The baseline survey that we conducted at the outset showed that approximately 95 per cent. of secondary schools and 87 per cent. of primary schools already offered extended activities after school to some extent. There is therefore a great deal of interest and commitment. Extended activities help schools to maximise the attainment of their children and support parents in doing that. Schools that have provided extended activities for some time are convinced of the benefits. I am sure that, as we develop the programme, that will be the case for all schools. The money provided—£840 million so far—is for start-up costs. Schools need to ensure that they sustain activities and we will support them with a charging regime to ensure that they do.

Philip Hollobone: What assurance can the Minister give that the £840 million will go to schools and not be tied up in local education authorities? What assessment has been made of the extra burdens on head teachers, teachers and school governors of implementing the project?

Beverley Hughes: A significant proportion of the £840 million goes directly to schools, with the remainder going through local authorities. Schools will receive a substantial amount of money directly from the Department to support the development. The money is not for supporting activities in the long-term, but for the development of such activities.
	We commissioned research from Manchester university on the impact on schools, and there has been an interim report. One finding is that if the project is managed in the right way, it reduces the burden on teachers. By that I mean that provided that head teachers do not take the view that they have to do everything themselves—we do not want them to take that view—but garner the support and opportunities offered by other organisations in the locality, including voluntary organisations and child care providers who want to work with them, the impact on schools can be beneficial in releasing teachers for their core job, which is teaching.

Academy Schools

Robert Wilson: How many academy schools are planned to open in the next 12 months.

Ruth Kelly: Nineteen.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She knows that I am an enthusiastic supporter of academies and trust schools. Indeed, children from my constituency will shortly benefit from the Madejski academy. However, several constituents have alleged that Reading education authority has been involved in financial maladministration and gross mismanagement in relation to the academy and council tax payers. Will the right hon. Lady undertake to examine that as a matter of urgency to ensure that the success of the academy programme is untarnished?

Ruth Kelly: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the academy programme. Indeed, I welcome support for the programme from wherever it comes in the House and outside because the programme is making such a difference to the life chances of some of our children in the most deprived communities in the country.
	The allegations that the hon. Gentleman just made in the House have never been brought to my attention. I am happy to consider them. If he writes to me, I shall do that and give him a full response.

Peter Soulsby: Is the Secretary of State aware of the likely disastrous effects on existing schools and the education of their pupils of establishing an academy on the site of the former Mary Linwood school in Leicester? Will she ensure a full and open review of such effects on other schools before any further academies are set up?

Ruth Kelly: We have looked at the evidence closely. Only yesterday, I published evidence that showed that the value added—the progress made by pupils in academy schools between the ages of 14 and 15—was greater than that in comparable schools. That has happened in the first two years of their operation, and our initial evidence suggests that, while academies have been improving pupils' results, the results in neighbouring schools have been improving at the same time. I therefore assure my hon. Friend that academies will start to tackle ingrained educational disadvantage while other local schools start to improve their results, too.

Sammy Wilson: Is the Secretary of State disappointed by the negative attitude of teachers' unions to the proposal to build more academies, given that it has brought more private and public money into the school system, especially for some schools that are experiencing problems? Will she give an assurance that the negative attitude of the teachers' unions will not lead to a Government retreat on the initiative?

Ruth Kelly: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are completely committed to our goal of establishing 200 academies, and we are moving faster than we would have anticipated at this stage, with more than 100 already up and running or in the pipeline. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the evidence, he will see that the staff who work in the academies are completely convinced of the difference that they are making to the achievements of young people, and that the sponsors of the academies are contributing to educational attainment. About 84 per cent. of the teaching staff in those schools say that the sponsor has made a positive difference to the values, the ethos and the achievement of the young people in them. I can give the hon. Gentleman a definite assurance on that.

David Chaytor: If the full programme of 200 academies is implemented, will they all be built on the basis of £20 million coming from the state and £2 million coming from the sponsor, or are other funding models being considered?

Ruth Kelly: Of course, all these questions are kept under review. At the moment, we have a system in which 10 per cent. or thereabouts of the capital cost of an academy is contributed by a sponsor. However, the important aspect of the academies project is not the   financial contribution of the sponsor. It is the time, the energy and the commitment that the sponsor gives to the project that can make such a big difference. Indeed, in taking the trust school programme forward, we are trying to bring the commitment of other external partners to the education of state school pupils in the most disadvantaged schools in our inner cities and most deprived areas, so that they can benefit from that commitment too.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Secretary of State agree that creation as an alternative to evolution should be taught in academy schools if the sponsors so wish?

Ruth Kelly: I do not, and there is no evidence whatever that that is happening. That allegation is most frequently made against the Emmanuel schools run by Sir Peter Vardy. Ofsted has inspected those schools on numerous occasions and one of them was yesterday given its third outstanding report. Ofsted has looked specifically at their science curriculum and at whether creationism was being taught in those schools, and it has concluded that it is not.

Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that an early stage in the development of an academy is the feasibility study? What exactly does such a study involve? Does it, for example, involve an investigation of the individuals who put up the £2 million?

Ruth Kelly: Of course due diligence requirements are carried out on potential sponsors, and there is a rigorous method of ensuring that they fulfil those requirements. There are also due diligence requirements and extra safeguards in relation to trust backers.

David Willetts: May I assure the Secretary of State that whatever hostility to academies there might be on her side of the House, we strongly support them? One of the many freedoms that academies enjoy is the freedom to employ their own staff. To do that, however, they depend on the Government to give them full information about the staff that they wish to employ. Among the 1,000 foreign convicted criminals released by the Home Office, there were drug dealers, violent offenders and 21 sex offenders, some of whom had been accused of offences against children. Can the Secretary of State assure the academies and all parents that any offenders who should have been placed on list 99 and on the register of sex offenders—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is totally and utterly out of order—[Interruption.] Order. It is not a rule of the House that Front Benchers are called to speak. It is a privilege that the Speaker gives to them, and they should not abuse that privilege. I call Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods.

Free Tuition

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If she will make a statement on the introduction of free tuition for a first level 3 qualification.

Bill Rammell: There will be a new entitlement to free learning for level 3 qualifications for those aged 19 to 25, supported by an expanded adult learning grant. The 19–25 entitlement and national rollout of the adult learning grant will both be implemented from 2007–08.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree that the entitlement to a level 3 qualification and the extension of the adult learning grant are very important to young adults in constituencies such as mine, where post-16 staying-on rates historically have been very low? Will he tell the House what his Department will do to let young adults in my constituency and elsewhere know about these new entitlements?

Bill Rammell: One of the biggest challenges that we face is the low level of participation at age 16 in this country. Historically, young people, particularly those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, have hit a brick wall in terms of their entitlement to free education to level 3 at age 19. This provision will really help. We are reviewing the information, advice and guidance service to ensure that we effectively get across the new entitlement to as many young people as possible.

Sixth-form Colleges

Kelvin Hopkins: If she will encourage the establishment of more sixth-form colleges; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: Yes, the recent further education White Paper, "Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances" reaffirmed our commitment to a strong and growing sixth-form college sector. The White Paper announced that new sixth-form colleges should be considered an option where new 16 to 19 provision is needed locally, including where there is a 16 to 19 competition, and a presumption in favour of proposals from successful colleges wishing to expand to deliver new specialised diplomas. We expect to issue guidance on that in the coming months.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will recall from a parliamentary answer given to me earlier this year that a direct and strong correlation exists between sixth-form size and exam success. Sixth-form colleges, such as that in my constituency, perform superbly well. It is argued that had sixth-form colleges been left with local education authorities, another 100 or more would have been created. Will she intervene directly to ensure that many more sixth-form colleges are created to the benefit of thousands of students every year?

Maria Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great interest that he takes in this matter. He is a governor of one of his successful local sixth-form colleges, and has always pursued assiduously the interests of sixth-form colleges, which can bring diversity to the local provision of education for this age group. He can be assured that we want to support sixth-form colleges and their expansion where they are successful as part of a local mix of provision that allows children to go where they will do best, whether that is to local schools, sixth forms or colleges.

Bob Russell: Is not the Minister aware that where there are sixth-form colleges alongside selective and other schools with sixth forms, the difference in funding given by the state to sixth-form colleges, such as that in Colchester, is disproportionate? No group of schools with sixth forms will voluntarily give up their sixth forms to create a sixth-form college unless the local education authority oversees it.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are closing the funding gap to which he refers, so proper choice and appropriate diversity should be much more available to suit the local area. I hope that he can support that.

Brian Jenkins: As the road has been taken once before of trying to impose sixth forms on Staffordshire schools, may I warn my hon. Friend about the flak that she will take? If we are to encourage schools to come together and youngsters to make the choice that suits their needs better, that is fine, but we should not send out the signal that we will take such a valuable asset—the sixth form—from secondary schools.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend can be assured that we are not saying to any school that they should or should not have a sixth form. The appropriate mix for local children and young people to do best, and to improve the strength and capacity of the local education system to provide vocational courses for young people, is what we aim to strengthen. That is a matter for local people. We are seeking not to impose or to tell schools or colleges how they should do that locally but to support their choices.

Crispin Blunt: In all the briefings that I have had from Dr. Paul Rispoli, the excellent principal of the successful Reigate college, the issue of differential funding has recurred constantly. I note that the Education and Skills Committee says that
	"it makes no sense that a student undertaking a course at a Further Education college should, other things being equal, be less well funded than a student taking the same course at a local school."
	Is the Minister saying that from now on courses will be equally funded and that her promotion of sixth-form options at schools will not be at the expense of colleges, because such schools will be better funded than colleges?

Maria Eagle: As I said to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), we are closing the funding gap referred to by the college principal by some eight percentage points over the next two years. We are trying to ensure that proper choice is available locally to young people and other learners to learn in the environment that they consider suits them best, vocationally and academically. I hope that both the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and his college principal feel able to support that.

David Kidney: As an alternative to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), in suitable cases may I commend Stafford's collegiate approach? All secondary schools, one sixth-form centre and one further education college have pooled their resources to offer the widest possible choice of courses to sixth-form students. Is that not a good way of improving the educational offer to all sixth-form students?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend has given a good local example of best practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) could have done the same had he chosen to ask a question about Campus Luton. It is right for areas to be able to organise local provision in the best possible way for them and their young people, and that is what these changes, and the extra support for FE and sixth-form colleges, are designed to achieve.

GCSE (Science)

Nadine Dorries: If she will make a statement on changes to the science GCSE.

Bill Rammell: We are improving the science GCSE by making the school science curriculum more engaging, catering for a wide range of students' interests and aptitudes, and still maintaining the breadth, depth and challenge of the current curriculum. We are also introducing a new statutory entitlement to study science programmes leading to at least two GCSEs.

Nadine Dorries: Countries such as China are making massive economic advances in subjects such as science and technology. Why does the Minister think it appropriate, in the face of such global economic competition, to dilute the standard of science that is taught in our schools and to close Nobel prize-winning science departments in our universities?

Bill Rammell: I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to the proposals for Sussex university that are currently being considered. Universities are autonomous—that is one of the strengths of our university system—but even if the Sussex proposals go ahead, the places will be picked up by neighbouring universities. Whatever is happening in one institution should not dilute the fact that in the current academic year we have seen a 12 per cent. increase in the number of students applying to study chemistry, and will see a further 5 per cent. increase next year. I believe that developments are moving firmly in the right direction.

Brian Iddon: In 1997, the state of the science laboratories in many of our schools was absolutely terrible. The Government invested a considerable amount in improving those facilities, but may I suggest that we need to go further?

Bill Rammell: We are committed to going further, as my hon. Friend will see if he looks at our projections for the future. In the coming financial year we are investing some £6 billion in the capital investment infrastructure in our schools, which is 10 times the sum that was invested in 1997.

Nick Gibb: At our last Education Question Time, the Minister for Schools said that in future all pupils would be entitled to study two sciences at GCSE level. We welcomed the Chancellor's Budget announcement that in future all pupils who achieved level 6 in science at key stage 3 would be entitled to study the three separate sciences at GCSE. Currently, 480,000 students take the double-award GCSE, compared with just 43,000 who take GCSEs in the three separate sciences. Does the Minister agree that all pupils should be given the opportunity to study the three separate sciences? What action will he take to encourage all schools to make them available to all pupils?

Bill Rammell: First, our proposal for reform of the science GCSE programme will help to ensure that there is progression to higher levels in science learning. Secondly, we propose to establish co-operation between schools, colleges and universities by 2008, so that every child who wishes to choose triple science will be able to do so. I consider that to be a significant advance.

Non-Vocational Education

Vincent Cable: What assessment she has made of the value of non-vocational adult education.

Phil Hope: We believe that non-vocational adult learning increases motivation to learn and self-confidence and improves family and community relationships. It also brings wider benefits such as improved health, greater tolerance and reduced crime. That is why the Government have committed some £210 million to personal and community development learning in 2006–07 and 2007–08.

Vincent Cable: Do Ministers have memories? Do they not remember that 15 years ago they campaigned alongside women's institutes against what they described as the mindless philistinism of the then Conservative Government, who sought to introduce the policy that this Government have now adopted: channelling resources much more into narrow vocational skills—which employers are often happy to pay for themselves—and away from the popular, broad-based non-vocational courses greatly favoured by many people, particularly older adult learners?

Phil Hope: Yes, I do remember the philistinism of the Conservatives when they were in power; I was a county councillor at the time and I had to deal with some of the implications of the appalling cuts that they inflicted on our education system. Broadly speaking, we are focusing our adult learning priorities on level 2 qualifications—for which, as we heard earlier, there is a great need in this country—skills for life, and 16 to 18-year-olds. That is not to say, however, that we are not investing in adult learning. In 1996 some 78,000 older learners were taking adult learning classes; by 2005 that figure had doubled to approximately 147,000, so there has been an increase. If people, including the Liberal Democrats, value short courses in stand-up comedy—they are available—and tarot card reading, they should be able to do them. However, we might expect them to make a little more of a contribution to the cost of such courses.

Tom Levitt: I was pleased to be invited a few weeks ago to the 10th anniversary of the university of the Third Age in Buxton—a magnificent organisation that is doing very well indeed, and which, of course, is not dependent on Learning and Skills Council funding. Although I do not oppose the principle of refocusing such funding—my hon. Friend has talked about that—the speed of change during the transition period is causing real problems for some organisations other than the U3A that are providing adult non-vocational education. Will my hon. Friend look again at the speed of the transition period?

Phil Hope: Yes. I should reaffirm that the £210 million personal and community development learning budget has been ring-fenced for the next two years to ensure that we protect family and neighbourhood learning, for example. On the wider roll-out of our priorities, we see evidence of colleges—City college Brighton and Hove is an example—that are able to increase both fees and participation rates. We are asking colleges about this issue and we signalled the direction of travel in successive White Papers, including the recently published further education White Paper on raising skills and improving life chances. I expect local colleges to take the opportunity provided by the roll-out of the train to gain programme, in particular, to increase fees and participation rates, and start providing much better delivery of the skills training that our employers require.

Maria Miller: The Government's policy of focusing further education funding on skills for life and level 2 qualifications has meant that courses in FE colleges suitable for adults with severe learning disabilities, which are often non-vocational, are being cut, because they do not neatly tick the boxes for the Government's national priorities. I recently met a group of young men with learning difficulties who attend many different colleges, including those in Reading, Newbury and Alton. This year, all their courses have been cut. Does the Minister feel that it is right to take away these men's opportunities for more independent living—and perhaps even employment—or will he join me in looking for ways to change what he will doubtless agree is an unintended consequence of the current policy?

Phil Hope: It is not an unintended consequence of Government policy—nor, indeed, an intended one—to cut such training and courses for the client group to which the hon. Lady referred. Adults with learning difficulties and disabilities are a priority for the Government, as we have made clear to the Learning and Skills Council. Indeed, we spent £1.5 billion in 2004–05 on meeting the needs of some 641,000 learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. This issue is a priority for the Government and will remain so.

Classroom Assistants

David Taylor: How many classroom assistants have been recruited by primary schools in (a) England and (b) Leicestershire since 2001; and if she will make a statement.

Beverley Hughes: In January 2001 there were 65,500 teaching assistants—that includes classroom assistants—employed in maintained nursery and primary schools in England. The number had increased to 97,900 as at January 2005. The equivalent figures for Leicestershire were 600 in 2001 and 1,200 in 2005. Figures released today show a further increase in the number of teaching assistants in the maintained school sector in England, with numbers rising to 152,800 in 2006.

David Taylor: I am grateful for that answer, which illustrates the success of the initiative in helping to drive up standards in primary schools across the land. There is, however, a continuing problem in the deployment of classroom assistants, which other hon. Members may have encountered. Can the Minister tell the House what changes are planned to harmonise the employment conditions of those often low-paid staff, who are of course predominantly female?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, I can. The pay and conditions of support staff are determined at local level so that they can fit local circumstances. First, many local authorities are reviewing the pay of, and undertaking job evaluations for, support staff in the light of the single status agreement. Secondly, the Government are working directly with social partners to determine how best to ensure fair play and rewards for staff. Thirdly, we have also extended the remit of the Training and Development Agency for Schools to encompass some of the issues around career pathways and career escalators. Finally, we have developed new vocational qualifications and opportunities for support staff to improve their qualifications and their career development while they are employed.

Michael Foster: The increase in the number of classroom assistants in England is reflected in Worcestershire. What evidence does the Department have of the impact of those greater numbers of classroom assistants?

Beverley Hughes: As I just said, decisions about employing classroom assistants and the way in which they are deployed are matters for local determination, but we are receiving increasing evidence from schools and local authorities that this is an important source of support for teachers, not least as we move towards personalised learning, which schools will have to adopt if they are to maximise the attainment of all children and, in particular, reduce inequalities for low achievers. However, as I have just said, the Training and Development Agency for Schools now has an extended remit and is beginning to undertake a much more systematic survey of evidence on the impact that classroom assistants have on the important agenda of children's levels of attainment.

Students (Career Choices)

Michael Fabricant: What steps she is taking to enable students in higher education better to match their aspirations and future employment prospects in chosen careers; and if she will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: Graduates' contribution to our economic growth is greatly valued and there is significant alignment of needs, with evidence of low unemployment rates and high utilisation of university-acquired skills. A key driver of Government policy at all levels is a better fit for the education provided with the skills needs and career opportunities in the economy.

Michael Fabricant: In a debate last week on the Science and Technology Committee report, we learned that there are some 50 courses on forensic science and some 350 different course combinations. Those include courses such as forensics and music, forensics and drama, and forensics and a foreign language, but apparently those courses do not provide the sort of qualification needed to have a career in forensics. Similarly, a degree in media studies is less likely than a degree in chemistry or history to get someone a job in the BBC. How can we better meet the aspirations of people studying for degrees in achieving the careers that they want?

Bill Rammell: That is the old chestnut about media studies again. In terms of employability, media studies has one of the best track records for degree qualifications. The hon. Gentleman's point about forensic science is an important one, and we need to ensure that students are aware of which qualification will lead to which particular career opportunity. However, I am heartened and encouraged by the fact that applications for the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—have increased in the past year. I refer to the significant increase in chemistry applications mentioned in answer to a previous question.

Kali Mountford: Yorkshire Forward is investing a large amount of money in universities and technical textiles, but one of the problems in trying to advance an important industry for our area is that some schools have not really geared up for the new industries of the future. What can be done to co-ordinate work in schools so that they are properly skilled to take advantage of the work being done in universities?

Bill Rammell: The most significant thing is the development of the 14-to-19 agenda and the diplomas that will directly attempt to ensure that we are capturing at the age of 14 young people who may be switched off and lost from the academic route, so that they have a decent, high-quality, high-standard vocational route to lead them not only to a particular career choice but also, ultimately, to university too, if that is their choice.

Owen Paterson: Walford and North Shropshire college delivers 500 courses to 8,500 adults at 150 venues. Those courses are of extraordinary value. People do not only learn skills; if they cannot read, that is picked up and they are brought into the world of reading. I wrote to the Minister after I posed a question at Education and Skills questions last November. He replied, but he did not answer the question. The White Paper wants museums and other institutions to deliver such courses, which is wholly inappropriate in a rural area such as Shropshire. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 5 January and again on 23 February. May I bring Mr. Pugh to visit the Minister and educate him on the realities of education in a rural area?

Bill Rammell: I will happily respond to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall be happy to meet his constituent, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely misinformed, as the types of qualification that he has just outlined fit absolutely into the skills for life requirement, which is a fundamental priority in the funding system.

National College for School Leadership

Patrick McFadden: What assessment she has made of the contribution of the National College for School Leadership to improving professional development of head teachers.

Jacqui Smith: The National College for School Leadership has a pivotal role to play in equipping our school leaders with the skills and support that they need to achieve our ambition of having a world-class education system. We have agreed a balanced scorecard with the college, which sets out clear criteria against which its success will be measured. I have termly meetings with the chair and chief executive of the college to review progress.

Patrick McFadden: Does the Minister agree that strong leadership in schools is vital in raising standards and, most importantly, in raising aspirations, so does she welcome the fact that 14,000 candidates have completed the headship qualification since 2001? Will she ensure that the structural changes implemented through the Education and Inspections Bill are equally matched by a departmental focus on the importance of school leadership?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the 14,000 heads and prospective heads who have been able to achieve that qualification through the National College for School Leadership. He is absolutely right that school leadership is fundamental, which is why I am so pleased about Ofsted's recent finding that 75 per cent. of leadership and management is good or better, and that the current generation of school leaders is the best ever. He is right to say that the provisions in the Education and Inspections Bill, especially the opportunity for schools to bring in external partners to help to develop governance and leadership, are an important step forward. I can give him an assurance that the Government will continue to support school leaders, not least through the National College for School Leadership—which, of course, Opposition Members would have abolished had they won the general election.

Classroom Discipline

Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on current standards of classroom discipline.

Jacqui Smith: Most pupils behave well most of the time, and Ofsted reports that behaviour is at least satisfactory at more than 99 per cent. of primary and 93 per cent. of secondary schools. But any level of misbehaviour is too high, which is why we are implementing a wide-ranging programme to help schools raise standards of behaviour further, including high-quality training materials for staff, extra resources for schools facing the greatest challenges and, in the Education and Inspections Bill, legislation to confirm the power of staff to discipline pupils.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that full and encouraging reply, but does she watch the programme, "That'll Teach 'Em", which is currently showing on Channel 4? I believe, and certainly many of those who have spoken to me believe, that it provides all the evidence that anyone, even the so-called education experts, can ever want to prove that strict classroom discipline creates the very best, excellent learning environment to which pupils are fully responding. Will she continue to emphasise the importance of discipline, which is good for education and will lead to improved qualifications to enable people to do well in later life?

Jacqui Smith: Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to watch the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I completely agree with him. I think that firm classroom discipline is at the heart of children being able to achieve their potential and learn in our schools. That is why the Steer report—produced by a group that we brought together under the leadership of a very experienced and excellent head teacher—demonstrated that good teaching and learning and good discipline are fundamentally linked. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is the direction in which all our moves on both behaviour and improving the quality of teaching are going.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Rape

John Robertson: What discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on a review of sentences for those found guilty of rape.

Mike O'Brien: May I first welcome you back to your place, Mr. Speaker? This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so since you returned after Easter.
	I have discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions a range of issues, including the prosecution of rape, but not specifically as yet the sentences for rape or a review of them.

John Robertson: Rape is one of the most heinous crimes; many young women cannot suffer the results of rape and, sadly, take their own lives. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that cautioning is not an appropriate sentence in rape cases? Can he give an example of such cases where a caution has been given? Will he reassess the sentences applied at present—such as cautioning, which in many instances does not fit the crime—with a view to reviewing the minimum sentences given, so that those involved in such rape cases can feel that justice has been done?

Mike O'Brien: A caution is certainly not an appropriate disposal for most rape cases. The proper sentence is a substantial term of imprisonment. Indeed, the average term of imprisonment in rape cases is seven and a half years. The use of a caution is rare and very exceptional. I have asked for some examples of where it has been used and have been given the following examples. A man had been secretly tape-recorded claiming to have raped his sister some years earlier and his sister denied it; a 14-year-old with learning difficulties was alleged to have had sex with a boy and the victim did not want to go to court; a 12-year-old boy encouraged a younger boy to give him oral sex while playing a game of truth or dare with a wider group of boys present; and one offender was a 17-year-old with a mental age of nine. Those are indeed rare and very exceptional cases. A caution can appear on a criminal record in certain cases, and a person may be put on the sex offenders register. However, in most rape cases a prison sentence is the appropriate disposal.

Jonathan Djanogly: On the issue of those found guilty of rape, how many foreign nationals released from our prisons who have not been deported were serving sentences for rape?

Mike O'Brien: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made a statement on those issues, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and the Home Office is looking at all those cases to ensure that the public are better protected.

Julie Morgan: What discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on increasing the number of successful prosecutions for rape.

Mike O'Brien: Following work with the Crown Prosecution Service, I issued on 29 March a consultation paper entitled "Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims", which sets out four proposals that aim to deliver more successful prosecutions by further strengthening the legal framework and improving our care for the victims of rape.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that response. Is he aware of the Amnesty International survey carried out last year? It showed that a third of people think that if a woman flirts, she has only herself to blame is she is raped, and that a quarter of people believe that the woman is partly to blame if she is wearing revealing clothes or if she is drunk. What is he going to do to change those attitudes—which will be reflected in juries, for example—and raise the dismally low conviction rate of 6 per cent. for reported rapes?

Mike O'Brien: I have indeed seen the Amnesty survey, and it makes disturbing reading. There is a Home Office campaign that seeks to challenge those attitudes. In particular, it highlights the potential penalties and people's absolute right to say no to sex. The proposals that I am currently consulting on will reduce the barriers to prosecution and improve the care of victims. They seek to strengthen the law on consent, enable expert evidence to be called, bring first reports of rape before a jury and allow the greater use of videoed evidence by victims. Securing convictions in rape cases is always difficult, but these proposals will assist the prosecution and, indeed, victims.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome steps to increase the number of successful prosecutions, but do we not need to ensure that sentencing properly reflects the gravity of the crime? The recent abduction and murder of Attracta Harron was a terrible case that has shocked the entire community in Northern Ireland. The Belfast Telegraph has launched a major campaign to ensure that serious sex offenders serve their full sentences in such cases. The perpetrator of that crime struck against Attracta Harron after being released early after a horrific rape. Will the Solicitor-General ensure that this matter is taken very seriously?

Mike O'Brien: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and it is indeed a very serious, difficult and regrettable one. It is a fact that the average sentence for rape convictions is seven and a half years' imprisonment. Many offenders receive substantially more than that for the most serious offences. It is important that we get the balance right in dealing with these cases and ensure that people who are a danger to the public are properly dealt with. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now ensuring that a proper risk assessment is carried out of persons who have committed offences so that we can assess the risk to the public over the long term and deal with it appropriately.

Bona Vacantia

David Kidney: How many payments were made to individuals out of money received by the Government by way of bona vacantia in the financial year 2004–05.

Mike O'Brien: There were 488 payments to individuals out of money received by way of bona vacantia in 2004–05.

David Kidney: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that when the provision affects the property of individuals or limited companies, it applies like a tax at a rate of 100 per cent.? If individuals are affected adversely by its application—no doubt like those involved with the 488 payments he mentions—they have to beg a faceless official to give them relief. They rely on the official's discretion to get that relief. Is not the obscurity and opacity of the whole system summed up by the fact that the Latin name is still being used today? Would he like to be the Minister who modernises the system and makes it fair and predictable?

Mike O'Brien: Although the Treasury Solicitors administer bona vacantia, the policy in relation to it is a matter for the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The current arrangements for making discretionary payments are flexible and, by and large, seem to work relatively well. They were recently revised and updated, and are kept under constant review to make sure that they reflect changes in society and enable people to get what they are entitled to more easily. Of the 488 cases, 238 involved people claiming estates to which they were legally entitled, after the Treasury Solicitor had administered them. The decisions were not entirely discretionary. The rules are rather old, but by and large they work because they have been updated over time.

Extradition (United States)

Andrew MacKinlay: How many extradition requests by the UK have been outstanding with the US authorities for in excess of (a) 10, (b) five and (c) two years; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: I am told that there are currently no extradition requests from the UK before the American courts that have been outstanding for more than two years, but there are some requests for individuals who are on the run when it has not been possible to make an arrest, or for individuals who are serving in US prisons.

Andrew MacKinlay: That is good news, but will the Solicitor-General tell us whether there is parity of treatment between the United Kingdom and the United States? We still have a one-sided extradition treaty. Will he use this occasion to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are saying to the United States authorities and Senate that there must be reciprocal arrangements? If our authorities and his office are to pursue the extraditions that they want, there must be appropriate and comparable reciprocity.

Mike O'Brien: On comparable arrangements, requests to the United States take an average of approximately five months to conclude and those to the UK take about seven months, so we take slightly longer. The standard for extradition in the United States under the Bill of Rights is one probable cause; that is part of the constitution, so we have to respect it. We think that our standard of requesting information is appropriate. The systems are slightly different, but very similar. There was an unfairness before 2003 in that the UK required a prima facie case, which was a much higher standard, but we have rebalanced the situation and it is much fairer than it ever was. We want the ratification of the 2003 extradition treaty. The Home Secretary has recently raised that with the US Attorney-General, and we hope that the US Senate will advise on and consent to it as soon as possible.

Simon Hughes: The Solicitor-General knows of the discontent about the arrangements between the States and the United Kingdom on extradition. Will he and the Attorney-General examine the whole range of treaties between us and other countries to ensure that equality, parity and reciprocity in extradition is the norm? As we review the functioning of the House of Lords, will he give serious consideration to whether decisions about treaties that the UK should enter into should be ones for Parliament, rather than the Executive or the Prime Minister?

Mike O'Brien: As for reciprocity, it is always difficult to balance the different ways in which decisions are made under different legal systems. The systems all have differing histories and statutory backgrounds. We need to ensure, as far as possible, that there is a level of reciprocity that is fair to those for whom we make applications and for whom applications are made to us. We have a well-established practice for dealing with treaties, which, in our view, broadly works fairly and well.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the coming weeks?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Tuesday 2 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
	Wednesday 3 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
	Thursday 4 May—A debate on the Government's strategy to improve the life chances of disabled people on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 5 May—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 8 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, followed by a motion to approve European documents relating to future European Union finances, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
	Tuesday 9 May—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 10 May—Remaining stages of the Police and Justice Bill, followed by a motion to establish a Joint Committee on Conventions of the House of Lords.
	Thursday 11 May—Remaining stages of the Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill.
	Friday 12 May—Private Members' Bills.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks.
	The past few days have indeed proved that a week is a long time in politics. Yesterday, the usually calm and cautious members of the Royal College of Nursing barracked and heckled the Health Secretary, raising their opposition to job cuts among nurses. When we have raised job cuts among nurses and doctors in the Chamber, the Leader of the House has consistently refused our calls for a statement by the Health Secretary or a debate on the NHS. Nurses are deeply concerned about patient care, so will the Leader of the House now ensure that there will be a debate in Government time on the state of the health service?
	One of the reasons for problems in the health service is the sheer incompetence of the Government. They miscalculated the cost of the new GP, nurses and consultants contracts by more than £600 million. They miscalculated the savings from legal aid, which will lead to 1,000 job losses in the courts service. Failure in the operation of working families tax credit and the new Child Support Agency system have meant that thousands of families have been left in financial difficulty. As we now know, failure by the Home Office to deport more than 1,000 foreign criminals meant that they were let out on to our streets, free to thieve, murder and rape again. May we have a full debate, in Government time, on ministerial incompetence?
	May we also have a statement from the Home Secretary on rising violent crime? Not all hon. Members will know that figures published by the Home Office today, which it claims show that crime was stable in the last three months of last year, show that over that period, sex offences were up, robberies were up, drug offences were up, and violent crime was up. Are those yet more problems that the Home Secretary thinks he should have more time to put right?
	May we also have a debate on the use made by the Government of reports produced by Select Committees? In recent months, we have seen warnings about the Rural Payments Agency ignored, warnings about problems in the tax credit system ignored, and warnings about the release of foreign criminals ignored. But that was not the only warning that the Home Office received about foreign criminals. It ignored Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
	On Tuesday, the Home Secretary said on "Newsnight" that "very, very few" foreign criminals had been released after he knew about the problem. The truth was that it was 288, and the rate of release went up after he was supposed to be getting a grip on the problem. Clearly, he is not in charge of his Department and attempts by some to place the blame on civil servants merely demean the Government.
	Time after time Ministers have been found wanting, and time after time they have failed to pay the price. May we have a debate on ministerial accountability, which will give this House the opportunity to say to this Government, "Enough is enough"?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Lady has some interesting definitions of what she means by job cuts. [Interruption.] I know that it has become fashionable for Conservative Members to identify particular areas of the country where restructuring and modernisation have taken place, and then to extrapolate a general picture from those isolated examples. It is for them to check carefully exactly what they mean by job cuts, not least in relation to nurses. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us try to have an element of moderation. A chorus of sedentary comments is not helpful.

Geoff Hoon: The simple facts are that 85,000 more nurses are now working in the United Kingdom than there were in 1997; we now have 404,161 nurses at work; and we have 307,000 more staff in the national health service than we had in 1997, including 215,000 more front-line staff. On whatever definition anyone uses, those are not job cuts. They may be things that Conservative Members want to use in debate, but the plain fact of the matter is that more and more people are working in our national health service, and they are delivering more and more treatment, more and more operations, ever-better standards of health care and ever-lower waiting lists. Those are the facts.
	Perhaps the right hon. Lady has not had time to read the pages of The Times this morning, but she will see in it a letter in which it is said:
	"The NHS will need to respond to the tide of rising expectations and need by improving efficiency and responsiveness. With the dedication and commitment of staff we believe that the NHS can continue its transformation and be a model for other countries."
	That letter is signed by, among others, Beverly Malone, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, and the chairman of the British Medical Association, together with representatives of unions and charities that work in the NHS. We are doing exactly what is set out by those people with real experience of a national health service.
	On tax credits, nine out of 10 low-income families with children are claiming tax credits. Tax credits are transforming the life chances of the poorest people in our society, which the Conservative Government did not care about and did not concern themselves with. We saw an appalling level of family poverty and child poverty during that period. We have lifted 700,000 children out of poverty—a policy that the Conservative party has consistently opposed.
	On foreign prisoners and deportation, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out the position in a written statement to the House, he made an oral statement in the House, and he made it clear yesterday that he would return to the House as necessary to ensure that that regrettable state of affairs is addressed—a state of affairs that the Government have addressed, and which had not previously been addressed by any other Government. That is a matter to which the right hon. Lady might give some consideration. No previous Home Secretary was in a position to provide the information because no previous Home Secretary had the records and information available to him. Again, the Conservatives ought to reflect on that before making such criticisms.
	On crime, overall we have seen a significant reduction in key crime statistics over the longer term. The statistics from the British crime survey showed that in the 12 months to September 2005 overall crime was falling, the level of violent crime was relatively stable, all personal crime rates were relatively stable, but domestic burglary was down by 13 per cent. and vehicle thefts were down by 14 per cent. That is an improvement. It is not sufficient; we want still greater progress.
	Again, that improvement is hardly helped by the Conservative party's consistent policy of opposing the very policies that we have proposed to make that happen, opposing greater numbers of police officers on the streets—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."]—opposing greater support for those police officers. Opposition Members cry rubbish but the truth is that they have consistently opposed providing the resources to allow those changes to occur. They cannot consistently complain in the House when they have opposed the very resources that allowed those policies to be implemented.

David Heath: The Conservative Government had their black Wednesday. Yesterday we had the triple whammy Wednesday for the present Government, and the Leader of the House has just displayed the complacency for which he is well known.
	We need a debate on the health service. Last week the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a national debate that would go on for weeks and weeks. We saw that national debate exhibited at the conference of the Royal College of Nursing. It is insulting to those nurses to say that they do not understand what job cuts in the nursing service are, when it is they who are losing their jobs and they who work in the wards that are being closed. We need a debate on the health service.
	On the Home Office, can the Leader of the House explain some simple procedure to me? In his oral statement yesterday, the Home Secretary said:
	"I can confirm that consideration of the most serious cases has, of course, commenced and I will report further on progress by the end of this week."—[Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 573.]
	We are not sitting tomorrow. There has been no written statement today. I have had no indication of an oral statement later today. How will the Home Secretary report on the murderers, arsonists, rapists and drug dealers whom he has let out, while lecturing the rest of the country about law and order? When will we have that information?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on ministerial responsibility, perhaps with reference to Sir Thomas Dugdale and the Crichel Down affair? Some of us do not believe that ministerial responsibility consists of lamely promising to put things right after the event, but rather taking responsibility for things that go wrong and accepting the consequences of failure.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to describe my observations as "complacent". I realise that the Liberal Democrats do not like facts, and I have consistently set out the facts to the House on the health service and tackling crime. The Government have consistently not only set out clear policies, but made the resources available, but the Liberal Democrats cannot say with any conviction or confidence that they would have taken the same course. I am happy that there should be debates on the health service and am delighted that there should be debates on tackling crime, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to discuss those matters in due course. This Government are not afraid of debating and discussing the significant improvements that we have made in British society since 1997.
	As far as ministerial responsibility and the Crichel Down case are concerned, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who is sitting behind him and who used to lecture on constitutional law at Cambridge university, because he will find that the situation on the Crichel Down case and ministerial responsibility is not quite how he represented it. I do not believe that there is any necessity for those matters to be debated on the Floor of this House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that he will keep the House informed of the facts as and when they are clearly established. Again, it is important that we all get our facts right, which is something that has escaped the Liberal Democrats in the past 24 hours.

Kali Mountford: Will this House have an opportunity to look at the review of sentencing for domestic violence offenders? Many victims of domestic violence will have heard expressions of remorse 34 times before the offender is finally brought to some form of justice. Although it is important to make sure that offenders learn how to manage conflict without resorting to violence, is it not also important that the victims of domestic violence are sure that they will be taken seriously when they report such crimes and that their families will be safe from any further violence in the future?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence in all its forms, and we have passed legislation to that end. One reason why legislation has been introduced is to ensure an improvement in reporting rates. The Sentencing Guidelines Council is an independent body and it is important for hon. Members—including, I hope, my hon. Friend—who take an interest in that matter to assist in its work by contributing to the consultation on guidelines for sentencing in relation to domestic violence offences. The deadline for contributions is 12 June, and I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

Andrew MacKay: During the Home Secretary's all-too-brief statement yesterday, he promised to keep the House informed, by the end of this week, about developments on where those foreign murderers, rapists and paedophiles have gone. Since then, it has come to light that there are far more foreign prisoners in our jails than was previously realised. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that the Home Secretary, or probably his successor, will come to the Dispatch Box on Tuesday, when the House returns, and make a further statement?

Geoff Hoon: As I have said, as and when the facts are clearly established, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House.

Andrew MacKay: The Home Secretary said that he would do so by the end of this week.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is asking whether that means by the end of this week.

Andrew MacKay: That is when the Home Secretary said that he would report to the House.

Geoff Hoon: That is what my right hon. Friend said, and it is important that he should see it through. I am sure that Opposition Members who have a genuine interest in the facts of the case recognise that it is important that a Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box should have all the facts in order to inform the House. That is my right hon. Friend's position, which is right and which he has made clear to this House.

Keith Vaz: As the Leader of the House will know, the Home Secretary has announced that there will be a cap on compensation for miscarriages of justice. He will also know that I have introduced a Bill to amend section 133(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to give persons who have suffered a miscarriage of justice the opportunity to appeal against the decision of the assessor. Does he agree that as we are to have a cap, it is important that there should be that right of appeal once an assessment is made? May we have a debate on that important matter?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Let me emphasise that a process of judicial review is already available to those who are dissatisfied with the level of compensation. I anticipate that that is an appropriate way of dealing with any challenge to the level of compensation, and I would urge him to consider it as an appropriate way forward.

Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate attempts by Liberal Democrat councillors in Wokingham to exclude children from Reading from schools in their district, despite the fact that Bulmershe, Maiden Erlegh and Ryeish Green schools have catchment areas that are well across the borough boundaries? Does he agree that Lib Dem councillors who are saying, "Wokingham schools for Wokingham children", are in clear breach of the Greenwich judgment, which has served us well for many years?

Geoff Hoon: I am certainly familiar with the Greenwich judgment, and it is important that it is followed by councillors all over the country. I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend a debate sooner than a week today, which I anticipate was in his mind. Nevertheless, it is important that all councils should respect the important decisions of the law in this regard.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate on the Floor of the House, in Government time, on the egregious abuse of human rights in Burma? In a week when Charm Tong, a courageous 24-year-old who is the founder of the Shan women's action network, is in the United Kingdom to highlight the use of rape as a weapon of war in her country, is it not time that we had the first ever statement or debate on the Floor of the House about the action that the Government will take in international forums to force the Government of Burma to stop killing, maiming and torturing its citizens and to start respecting and honouring them?

Geoff Hoon: We had Foreign Office questions only this week, and I am sure that had the hon. Gentleman been able to raise that issue he would have done so with equal clarity. I cannot promise him an early debate, but I can say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary keeps the very disturbing situation in Burma under constant review. It is an important subject for the Foreign Office, and the British Government use their influence to try to improve what is, as I say, a very disturbing situation.

Douglas Hogg: May I put it to the Leader of the House that wereally should have a debate on ministerial responsibility? He will know that in the past six weeks there have been dramatic examples of culpable ministerial negligence. There is the failure of the Rural Payments Agency, for which Lord Bach and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are personally responsible; and then there are the mistakes and errors of the Home Secretary. All three say   that they take responsibility, but there is no accountability unless there is resignation. This House demands the resignation of those three Ministers.

Geoff Hoon: I am puzzled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view of proper process. He appears to assume that Ministers are guilty before charge, never mind after charge having followed a process. In the light of his comments, I cannot quite see the purpose of a debate.

Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the Floor of the House on the future of the Post Office card? He will be aware of early-day motion 1531, which has 314 signatures from Members across Parliament.
	[That this House is gravely concerned by the Department of Work and Pensions' (DWP) decision to withdraw support for the Post Office Card Account when the existing contract expires in 2010 and in particular by the Department's attempt to kill off the Account in advance of 2010, through pilot schemes being introduced immediately when it will deny to new benefit claimants the option of opening a Post Office Card Account, inform 35,000 existing customers that they will have to use a bank or building society instead of the Post Office Card Account and require them to provide their account details, and pay benefits of 2,500 existing customers into a bank account rather than the Post Office Card Account, ignoring the preferences they made when their benefit books were stopped; condemns the fact in that, breach of all plans, these pilot schemes are being introduced without consultation; and calls on the Government to halt these pilot schemes immediately and to institute an immediate review of the DWP's proposal to abolish the Post Office Card Account by 2010.]
	This is an important issue at the grass roots of this country, and people are very concerned. Will he speak to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions, which are dealing with it? There is no joined-up thinking, and it is important that we should have a debate here as soon as possible.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise that issue at business questions. Let me repeat what I have said before—it has always been the Government's ambition to ensure that the Post Office card continues for as long as necessary to allow those who use it, and do so successfully, to be able to transfer from that scheme to an arrangement whereby they can continue to receive benefits through the Post Office service. That means that the post office network is in no way threatened by the change, but ensures that people get a better standard of service, as well as returns on their savings such as interest that can be paid through other accounts. The Government entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the future of the post office network, which is important to us and to its many users around the country. However, I urge her to look carefully at the way in which we propose to deal with the card and the alternatives available for people thereafter.

David Howarth: Perhaps I should first put on the record that I never lectured in constitutional law, but I did lecture in employment law, which might be more relevant to the fate of the Ministers concerned. [Laughter.]
	May we have a debate on nuclear waste? The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is reporting today, but its remit covered only waste from existing nuclear power stations, not waste from future-build nuclear power stations, which according to the Environmental Audit Committee will produce 400 per cent. more high-level waste than previous nuclear power stations. The Committee is anxious that its report is not misrepresented as solving the nuclear waste problem for the future. I am sure that a debate would help to clarify that.

Geoff Hoon: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for—

John Bercow: Misrepresenting him.

Geoff Hoon: I was going to say extending the range of his competencies. As an employment lawyer, he will clearly be familiar with such matters, so I will avoid misdescribing his abilities in future.
	On waste disposal and nuclear power, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Government have undertaken an extensive review of this country's energy requirements and the ways in which we might fulfil them. That consultation period concluded on 14 April. The Government are considering those representations carefully, and will of course inform the House of their conclusions in due course.

David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of concern, certainly on Labour Benches, about the Government reverting to the pre-1997 practice whereby Parliament is virtually shut down for nearly three months? While it is true that constituency and casework is undertaken, at least by most of us, we are not allowed to do our main job. Does any Parliament in a democracy shut down for such a long period; and what justification can there be for reverting to the old practices?

Geoff Hoon: This Parliament probably sits for more weeks in the year than almost any other that I am familiar with. That is the short answer to my hon. Friend's question. For those who want to spend still more time here, I recognise, as I have told the House before, that it is important to consider ways of improving the arrangements during the summer recess, not least to try to bring Members back to the House as early as possible. One of the practical problems has been the timing and organisation of party conferences. I have discussed with each of the main political parties the possibility of bringing those forward to allow the House to sit promptly thereafter, and I hope that they will consider that carefully.

Michael Penning: Is the Leader of the House aware that, sadly, Hertfordshire fire and rescue services are about to hold a strike? There is a dispute between the excellent firefighters in Hertfordshire and their employers. The chief fire officer naturally asked the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that military cover be supplied should the strike go ahead. A Minister told me yesterday that it had been refused. No request went to the Ministry of Defence for military cover—81 military people were required. It would be the first time in this country that no military cover was provided in the event of a firefighters' strike. That would put my constituents' lives at risk. Will a Minister come to the House to explain why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister did not request the firefighters that we need?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman speaks from considerable knowledge and experience. Without going into detail about the specific dispute, I hope that he will use his good offices to find ways to avoid the strike. No benefit can follow to any part of our society from it, and I hope that he will join me in urging those who call for such a strike to call it off.

Anne Moffat: Will my right hon. Friend mark and celebrate with a debate nurses day, which is on 12 May this year? I do not believe that all nurses would want to associate themselves with the behaviour of the Royal College of Nursing at its conference yesterday. When a woman stands in front of a bulk of women and is harangued in such a way, it does a disservice to nurses and women. I wish that the RCN had been as passionate in supporting low paid manual workers when the Conservative party decimated their jobs.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of knowledge and experience of the nursing profession and I shall not try to match her expertise. As I have already said, the Government take seriously the tremendous contribution that nurses make. We have supported them by massively increasing the number of nurses in the national health service and substantially increasing their real income. A newly qualified nurse will now earn £19,166—a 25.6 per cent. real terms increase since 1997. We have backed our commitment to the NHS and nursing both in the rewards to individual nurses and in the number of nurses who currently practise.

Edward Garnier: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House at an early opportunity to explain the policy behind the Identity Cards Act 2006? Last weekend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said that identity cards would carry health information about individuals. Last October, the Home Secretary expressly said that they would not. Indeed, throughout our discussions on the measure, from after the general election to Royal Assent, the Government's case was that health information would not be carried on identity cards or on the national identity register. It appears that the Home Office is having a little local difficulty, and the Home Secretary needs to come here and sort himself out.

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has spent a great deal of time at the Dispatch Box in the most recent Session. When we consider the Bills that the Government plan to introduce, the Home Office is prominent in its contribution to legislation. We debated the important identity cards measure at great length on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I anticipate that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise further issues with my right hon. Friend at the next Home Office Question Time.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the assistance available to people who are made redundant? I previously raised with him the 700 workers at Outokumpu steel works in my constituency who were made redundant. As a result of his good offices and those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a rapid response programme was set up. However, contrary to the advice that officials are giving Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, the information that I receive from constituents and Gary Gordon, the Transport and General Workers union representative at Outokumpu, is that many people in genuine need are being refused assistance for retraining and, when assistance has been offered, the response is often far from rapid. Those matters are important and I hope that my right hon. Friend will arrange for early consideration of them.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has assiduously raised the interests of that specific group of workers and I recognise the concern that he properly expresses. I am disappointed to learn that the rapid response programme, which has generally been a successful Government initiative to assist those who face unemployment or redundancy, has not appeared to work as well as it should have done in the case that he raises. I shall ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry is made aware of that.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a debate soon, in Government time, on the state of the economy in Northern Ireland? Yesterday, the Prudential insurance company announced the closure of its Belfast call centre office as well as offices in Bristol and London, with a loss of 500 jobs, many of them to India. In 2002, Prudential signed an agreement with the union that stipulated that no compulsory redundancies would be made at the firm as a result of offshoring. That deal ran out in February and there are concerns that the company deliberately waited until now so that it would not be held to it. It is a serious matter for the many workers involved and I hope that the Leader of the House can draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those important issues. No one underestimates the anxiety and the effect of such difficult decisions on those who are at risk of losing their jobs. I emphasise the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that the Government have put in place a series of measures to assist those who are at risk of losing employment, not least because of the global effects of the modern economy. People have the prospect of better training, education and financial support than in the recent past. However, the most important alternative is other employment. Again, by and large, with the 2 million extra jobs created since 1997, most people who unfortunately lost work have found alternative employment quickly through the training and support packages that the Government make available.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend knows that when people lose their jobs in the private sector, and especially in manufacturing, it is hardly mentioned in the press and the Opposition do not raise an eyebrow. However, when a fraction of the jobs lost in manufacturing is lost in the public sector, it becomes a national crisis and Opposition Members get out of their prams. What opportunities exist for a collective whinge for those in the private sector who lose their jobs daily?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has made his point. I am still reeling from the idea of Opposition Members in their prams. It is important to give the necessary support to provide opportunities for retraining and education to secure the jobs that will be increasingly available in the 21st century. That is not to downplay the impact of redundancies and job losses on individuals and their families. However, it is important that we continue to modernise industry and our public services to ensure that they are fit for the 21st century.

Andrew Turner: May we have an opportunity to amend the law on hosepipe bans so that those who are forbidden to use a hosepipe to water a small garden are not disadvantaged compared with those who want to use one to fill a large swimming pool, which is perfectly legal, and so that those who want to use a hosepipe to clean a small car are not disadvantaged when compared with those who wish to use one to clean a large commercial vehicle, which is also perfectly legal?

Geoff Hoon: My constituents have not so far experienced the difficulty of filling their swimming pools, so that has not been raised with me. I acknowledge that it may be a problem for a small minority. However, there should be fairness and consistency in the operation of rules—that was the substance of the hon. Gentleman's point—and I assure him that I will get the relevant Minister to write to him along those lines.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend will doubtless know that the Competition Commission has today confirmed that the home credit industry—the doorstep lenders—has been overcharging its customers by tens of millions of pounds, as many of us have said for some time. Will he join me in calling on doorstep lenders not to contest those findings and waste time on months of argument but to cut their charges now? If they do not, will he ask his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to use their powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to introduce the necessary legislation to make them cut their charges now rather than years in the future?

Geoff Hoon: I have not seen the report that my hon. Friend mentions, but we all recognise the risks of making decisions on the doorstep about loans and borrowing. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I assure him that it will be passed to the relevant Minister.

Michael Weir: The Leader of the House will know that it has been reported this morning that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is to recommend the deep storage of nuclear waste in as yet unspecified sites. CoRWM also said that it could take many decades to prepare the sites. This news will cause great anxiety in the communities in Scotland that featured on the last Nirex list. They opposed plans for waste dumps in the past and will continue to do so. Does this not underline the need for an urgent debate on the disposal of nuclear waste, and on the implications of the Government's inexplicable obsession with new nuclear power stations?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to alarm any of those communities by referring to them in the way that he just did. I urge him not to take such a course of action. It is important that we have a thorough review of energy requirements, as I said in answer to an earlier question. That necessarily involves consideration of the disposal and storage of nuclear waste, and that will be part of the Government's consideration of the country's future energy requirements.

David Taylor: Our Government have a really good record on animal welfare, as illustrated by the legislation that we passed during our nine years in government. However, the one area that remains unaddressed is that of animals in the laboratory. Animal tests are the weakest link in the safety testing of new drugs; they are so poorly predictive for humans that 92 per cent. of candidate drugs fail in clinical trials, their having had success with animals. Does the Leader of the House have any idea whether the Government will respond to early-day motion 92, which has been signed by hundreds of people across the Chamber? It states:
	[That this House, in common with Europeans for Medical Progress, expresses its concerns regarding the safeguarding of public health through data obtained from laboratory animals, particularly in light of large numbers of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions that were not predicted by animal studies; is concerned that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments, and has no plans to do so; and, in common with 83 per cent. of general practitioners in a recent survey, calls upon the Government to facilitate an independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research.]
	If no such evaluation is to be forthcoming, may we have a debate on this most important subject?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an important issue, and I am grateful for his observations about the Government's record on animal welfare. We are proud of the steps that we have taken to continue to protect animals. Equally, it is important that this country is able to go on engaging in scientific research, while ensuring that that research is effective and efficient. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must balance the need for effective scientific research against the protection and welfare of animals, and I assure him that we keep that balance under constant review.

Julian Lewis: The Leader of the House will recall the cutting of the frigate and destroyer fleet from 35 in 1997 to only 25 now, and the cutting of the replacement Type 45 programme from 12 vessels to only eight. Bearing in mind the report in The Herald today that there will be only six ships, rather than eight, despite the statement by the First Sea Lord that it was absolutely essential to have eight, may we have an urgent statement by a defence Minister on whether this cut is going to take place? If that statement is to be made, should it not be made before, rather than just after, the local government elections?

Geoff Hoon: Unfortunately, in my many years as Secretary of State for Defence—during which the hon. Gentleman was assiduous in asking me questions—I never managed to persuade him that the number of ships is not the critical factor. I know that he is fascinated by naval history, and he will know that the Royal Navy had thousands of ships in the late 19th century. That number was subsequently reduced to hundreds, and it is now much smaller. To that extent, there have been cuts. All I can say to him is that the ships that we have now are enormously more capable, and that the judgment on numbers is made in relation to the capabilities that the United Kingdom Royal Navy requires. That is a consistent process. It has not simply taken place since 1997; it has been going on for 400 or 500 years.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend bring a report to the House on my constituent, Michael Shields, who is serving a 15-year jail sentence in Bulgaria for a crime to which another man has confessed? Michael Shields' final appeal was heard in the Cassation Court in Bulgaria on 21 March. Michael Shields, his lawyers and the Foreign Office were informed that the court's verdict would be received within 30 days. The 30 days elapsed on 20 April, yet a week later there is still no news about when the verdict will be made available. This intolerable situation is creating even greater strain for all those involved. Will my right hon. Friend make representations on this matter?

Geoff Hoon: Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have followed this case with some concern over a long time. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the case of her constituent. The Government are concerned about the matter, and I know that it has been followed closely by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I will ensure that he responds to my hon. Friend in the light of her detailed question.

Owen Paterson: May I give the Leader of the House some very simple NHS statistics? Two early-stage breast cancer sufferers are receiving Herceptin at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital cost-free from their primary care trust. Those who have Shropshire addresses could receive such care at that hospital if the Shropshire PCT would fund it, but, because it will not, they are having to raise £47,000 each for the treatment, and there are 12 of them. It cannot be right that people with a Staffordshire address, a Cheshire address or a Welsh address get the drug free from their PCT, while people with a Shropshire address have to find £47,000 for it. My final statistic is that I have written three times to the Secretary of State: on 25 March, 5 April and 19 April. She has not answered once. Will she please come to the House and answer my questions?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue before—

Owen Paterson: And I will again.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman heckles me to say that he will again, but I hope that he will not have to, because the Government's position is clear on this issue. We do not believe that there should be a difference in treatment according to where people live. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made that absolutely clear in relation to Herceptin and a number of other drugs. These decisions should be taken on an individual basis in the light of the clinician's judgment. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend responds to the hon. Gentleman again.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on, as I have to protect time-limited Northern Ireland business, and there is now a statement.

Fatal Shootings (Iraq)

Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, I wish repeat a statement made in another place by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I wish to inform the House of decisions taken by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Army Prosecuting Authority in a case that has attracted a great deal of media attention. The case concerns an incident in Iraq on 24 March 2003 that resulted in the fatal shootings of Sergeant Steven Roberts, formerly of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, and Mr Zaher Zabti Zaher, an Iraqi.
	The Crown Prosecution Service has now informed me that, after a full investigation of the case and a careful review of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings in this case. The Army Prosecuting Authority has also had the opportunity to examine the evidence in this case, including that obtained by the Metropolitan police, and has decided that there is insufficient evidence to charge any of the servicemen with military offences.
	The CPS has produced a review note explaining its decision, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. As appears from that note, on the evidence available when the Attorney-General asked the CPS to consider the case, it might have been perceived that British soldiers had shot an unarmed Iraqi civilian, Mr. Zaher, a number of times, even after he had been severely injured and was in no position to pose a threat to anyone. In the course of firing at Mr. Zaher, two bullets had struck Sergeant Roberts, who was killed.
	At the request of the CPS, the Metropolitan police carried out further inquiries, which resulted in the interview of five US soldiers who had witnessed part of the incident, a detailed statement from an Iraqi witness, and an autopsy on the body of the deceased Iraqi citizen. As its review note states, the CPS believes that it now has the fullest account of what occurred, although the passage of time has undoubtedly adversely affected the quality of some of that evidence. As it also explained, there are some differences in the accounts given.
	I will now set out the essence of the account on which the CPS, having considered the totality of the evidence, has proceeded. I quote:
	"On Sunday 24 March 2003 a troop of three Challenger battle tanks, part of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, were involved in a road block on the outskirts of Az Zubayr, Iraq, to stop and search vehicles for weapons.
	Shortly after 6.00 am, Mr Zaher approached the tanks throwing rocks, firstly at the tanks and then at Sergeant Roberts who was standing alone outside his tank. Sergeant Roberts put out his hand, apparently as a signal for Mr Zaher to stop, but he did not do so. Sergeant Roberts drew his pistol and aimed it at Mr Zaher but although it appears that he fired one shot, the pistol malfunctioned and Mr Zaher continued to approach him, throwing more rocks. Sergeant Roberts apparently tried to clear the jam as Mr Zaher advanced.
	A soldier in one of the tanks opened fire, apparently as warning shots, but Mr Zaher did not stop. Soldiers from two of the tanks then fired a number of shots at Mr Zaher. One of those weapons was set to fire at targets a considerable distance away and was not accurate at close range. Although Mr Zaher was hit and severely injured in the arm, two of the bullets struck Sergeant Roberts in the torso and he fell to the floor, fatally wounded. As soldiers dismounted from the tanks to give assistance to Sergeant Roberts, Mr Zaher got up holding a rock and started towards him again. One soldier, who had gone to assist Sergeant Roberts, said he feared that Mr Zaher was about to attack again so he fired his pistol several times and Mr Zaher again fell to the floor. According to some of the soldiers, despite his injuries, Mr Zaher again got up to advance on Sergeant Roberts, and holding a rock. The soldier who was attending to Sergeant Roberts, perceived that Mr Zaher still posed a threat and directed another soldier to shoot Mr Zaher. On this occasion he did not get up. British medical staff attended and Sergeant Roberts and Mr Zaher were declared dead at the scene."
	I now want to turn to the circumstances of the investigation of this case. Shortly after the incident, the special investigations branch of the Royal Military Police—the SIB—undertook an early sudden death criminal investigation and produced a short report. It said that the SIB was unable to examine the scene or gather forensic evidence, although photos of the location were taken five days later. The incident was also investigated by the Army accident prevention and investigation team to determine whether any immediate steps could be taken to improve systems and procedures. On 4 July 2003, the commanding officer of the soldiers involved in the incident decided that no further investigation of the incident was necessary. That decision followed advice from an Army Legal Services officer who had read the first SIB report.
	However, subsequently, on 18 July 2003, the head of the SIB concluded that the case had not been fully investigated. He was concerned about gaps in the evidence and, after discussion with the Army Prosecuting Authority, decided to reopen the investigation and seek a second legal opinion on the case. Attempts by the head of the SIB to reopen the investigation were resisted by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division chain of command on the basis of the original legal advice. One issue that loomed large was whether the prosecution would have to establish conclusively at the onset of the trial that Mr. Zaher was not a combatant. It was also said that, were a case to proceed, soldiers could rely on the defence that they were acting in self-defence under the rules of engagement.
	In fact, as article 50 of protocol 1 to the Geneva convention 1977 makes clear, if there is doubt about whether a person is a civilian, that person should be considered to be a civilian. On 7 August 2003, a more senior officer of the Army Legal Services unequivocally advised the chain of command that the investigation should be reopened. A further investigation was required because: the British soldiers who had fired shots during the incident had not been interviewed under caution; witness statements had not been taken from the American soldiers or the Iraqi witness; a further ballistics investigation was required to ascertain which soldiers had fired shots; and there had been no post-mortem of Mr. Zaher's body.
	The chain of command continued to receive conflicting advice from the Army Legal Services, but on 11 September 2003 the chain of command agreed with the head of the SIB that there should be a further criminal investigation, on the understanding that the British soldiers involved in the incident would not be interviewed under caution at that stage. In February 2004, the chain of command received additional advice from the senior Army Legal Services lawyer on whether Mr. Zaher was to be regarded as a civilian or a combatant. Also, in February 2004, the chain of command agreed that the SIB should continue its investigation in the most appropriate way according to its professional judgement. Soldiers who had been at the incident were then interviewed under caution by the SIB.
	On 3 August 2004, the head of the Army Prosecuting Authority wrote to the Attorney-General, as the superintending Minister of both the APA and the CPS, advising that this case should be dealt with in the civil jurisdiction. The military and UK civilian courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a whole range of serious offences allegedly committed by UK nationals overseas. He was concerned about the considerable time that had elapsed between the incident and the chain of command permitting a full investigation by the SIB.
	The Attorney-General agreed with the head of the APA, after consulting the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the case should be transferred to the civilian jurisdiction. The Attorney-General was concerned that the intervention by the chain of command, and the delays in the case, could have led to the defence lawyers raising abuse of process arguments had the soldiers been charged with criminal offences. An acquittal by a military court, following a successful abuse of process argument by the defence, might have been perceived by some as a final act of the military to cover up any possible wrongdoing by the British soldiers involved in the incident. Such perceptions would not have been in the interest of the soldiers and might have damaged the reputation of the military justice system.
	Once the case had been transferred to the civilian jurisdiction in October 2004, the CPS concluded that further investigations were essential and the Metropolitan police took over the investigation. The Metropolitan police had to carry out its investigation in the difficult circumstances that prevailed in Iraq. During that time, the body of Mr. Zaher was exhumed and an autopsy was undertaken. The American soldiers were interviewed, a further ballistics report was obtained, and efforts began in earnest to discover whether the local population could help the police with their inquiries. After the Metropolitan police had completed its investigation in February 2006, all the available evidence was reviewed by the CPS, following advice from Treasury counsel in March 2006.
	The CPS, having been satisfied that the Metropolitan police had completed all inquiries that could be undertaken, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict any of the British soldiers of the deaths of Mr. Zaher and Sergeant Roberts. The reason for that was that the evidence of those soldiers involved in the shooting was that Mr. Zaher was attacking Sergeant Roberts and that they acted to defend him. The conclusion of investigations shows that, while there were inconsistencies in accounts provided by them, British soldiers at the scene who witnessed the incident broadly support that version. The statements provided by the American witnesses and the forensic evidence did not in substance undermine the accounts of the British servicemen. Mr. Miz El Subaiyih, the single Iraqi witness, gave a different account of the incident, making no reference to Sergeant Roberts being shot and referred only to the shooting of Mr. Zaher.
	The Attorney-General is wholly satisfied that the decision to transfer this exceptional case to the civilian system was the right action to take in the particular circumstances of the case. He also believes that it would have been better if there had been an earlier full investigation, as the head of the SIB and the senior advisory lawyer unequivocally recommended. Only after a full investigation had been completed were the prosecutors in a position to make informed decisions. However, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is no suggestion that the chain of command acted unlawfully.
	The difficulties associated with the initial stages of this case should not detract from the fact that the case has now been fully investigated. The full investigation has established that there is no realistic prospect of conviction. I very much regret the stress that any delay must have caused Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Zaher's relatives and the soldiers and their families. This case has taken a significant period to conclude but further measures have been put in place to ensure that service cases are better handled in future. I am assured by my ministerial colleagues that the Ministry of Defence has provided additional resources for investigations in Iraq, including more trained investigators to deal with the most serious cases, and additional clerical support and equipment.
	In addition, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will soon begin a thematic inspection of the SIB, and will report later this year. The Attorney-General has encouraged the service prosecuting authorities to work closely with service investigators to improve the quality of investigations and to reduce delay. The Attorney-General has also discussed these issues with the Judge Advocate-General, who has introduced new directions hearings and which are reducing delay.
	I am pleased to inform the House that the military police and the APA prosecutors are now, as a matter of standard practice, working closely together from the outset of investigations in serious cases. One advantage of that approach is that the investigators now receive early legal advice from independent APA prosecutors on the weight of evidence and on what further inquiries need to be undertaken before a decision is reached on whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect. That approach, together with a provision in the Armed Forces Bill, will help to avoid the delays that took place in this case. The Bill makes it clear that when the military police consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect with a serious criminal offence, the case must be referred to the director of service prosecutions for an independent legal decision.
	Some 100,000 servicemen and women have served on Operation Telic. Only a very small number have been accused of incidents involving the alleged ill-treatment of Iraqi civilians. Where there is an allegation of wrongdoing and there is supporting evidence following investigation, charges will be brought. Our troops in Iraq continue to perform outstandingly, but they are not above the law.
	Today, our sympathies must of course go to all the families involved, but particularly to the family of Sergeant Roberts.

Dominic Grieve: Let me begin by echoing the Solicitor-General's expressions of sympathy for the family of Sergeant Roberts, and indeed for that of Mr. Zaher, in this tragic series of events. I thank the Solicitor-General for early sight of his statement—all the more because the first indication I had that the statement would be made was in an e-mail timed at 1.14 this morning, which rather suggests that the Attorney-General and his Department were left a little in the dark by the Government's business managers on how today's business would be conducted.
	The Solicitor-General's statement, and the CPS report that accompanied it, were extremely thorough, illuminating and helpful in explaining what happened. I am entirely satisfied that the Attorney-General has acted completely properly in this matter. In the light of that, I hope that the Solicitor-General will take in good part the points that I think need to be raised.
	Does the Solicitor-General agree that what emerges most clearly from the CPS report, after two lengthy investigations of the matter—one through Army Legal Services and the SIB between 2003 and 2004, and the second by the police and the CPS—is that the original conclusion and assessment by the first SIB report and the commanding officer was, in fact, entirely correct? This was an incident in which soldiers acted to protect a comrade, Sergeant Roberts, who was under attack from Mr. Zaher. The incident took place in difficult circumstances and with tragic consequences, but no one could possibly say that there was any imputation of criminality. In that context, it is perhaps a little unfortunate that as lawyers we must resort to the expression "insufficient evidence to prosecute". As the Solicitor-General may agree, on the facts given it is difficult to see that this was anything other than a tragic series of events initiated by Mr. Zaher's behaviour.
	I am glad that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have acknowledged concern about the length of time that this matter has taken. Part of it—a longer period—was during the time in which the Attorney-General was seized of the matter, but I accept that it was an investigation in difficult circumstances. I hope that the Solicitor-General can provide some reassurance that he is satisfied that the police investigation was conducted as expeditiously as possible.
	Does the Solicitor-General agree that what we should strive for in cases such as this is prompt and thorough investigation by the SIB, through the APA, when the specialist nature of its skills can properly reflect the extremely challenging environment in which soldiers are operating, in what in this instance was a combat zone during the initial stages of hostilities in Iraq? May we be reassured that the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are satisfied that the new structures that they have established will work to enable the SIB and the APA to provide an efficient and effective service?
	The Solicitor-General may agree with me that it is clear that there were inconsistencies in the approach initially, which left the Army chain of command in considerable difficulty over what line to adopt. What we ought, and hope, to see in future is a fairly seamless process whereby such matters can be dealt with in the military sphere, and intervention by the Attorney-General and the police is very rarely needed.
	I realise that this may fall a little outside the Solicitor-General's province, but it is pretty plain from the CPS report that the disquiet that has been expressed about the circumstances in which the troops found themselves at the time must remain in question. The use of tank crews in a semi-infantry role to carry out what amounted to a form of crowd control, at a time when they were engaged in intense hostilities—and had been so very recently—and with some equipment that was described in the CPS report as totally unsuitable for the circumstances in which they found themselves—we also know that body armour was deficient in the case of Sergeant Roberts—must give rise to anxieties. I very much hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to communicate those anxieties to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and that we may be able to hear more from them about that aspect of the matter in due course.

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded, and particularly for his comments about the "thorough, illuminating and helpful" CPS report and his comment that the Attorney-General had acted properly throughout. He has indeed.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this was a tragic series of events. He asked whether the original conclusion was correct. That is so, in the sense that the conclusion has been the same from the start, but conclusions should be reached on the basis of a full and proper investigation of the evidence. That is the way in which we should do it in this country, and that is the way in which our armed forces seek to operate. That is why, when questions were raised about the way in which this case had proceeded, it was necessary for the matter to be dealt with by the CPS and the Metropolitan police. Now, no one can argue that there was not a full and proper investigation, as indeed there was. It is in the interests of everyone, including the military, that such incidents are fairly and properly investigated and that our armed forces are clearly seen to be subject to the rule of law. Nothing could be more damaging to the reputation of our armed forces, and more likely to provoke hostility towards them, than the suggestion that they can get away with criminal acts of violence against civilians with impunity and without full and proper investigations.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the thoroughness of SIB investigations and whether the Attorney-General and I were satisfied that the procedures now being introduced were adequate to ensure proper investigation. The key change is that in future the prosecutors in serious cases will be involved from an early stage. That will enable them to give advice and guidance to the SIB about what evidence needs to be collected and what procedures are necessary, so that—we hope—investigations will proceed much more effectively in future. We are satisfied that those improvements are very important. In addition, the report on the SIB by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which is due later this year, will provide important guidance on what improvement the SIB needs to make internally.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the delays. They are indeed regrettable. There were clearly differences of view in Army Legal Services: our lawyers, quite honestly, had formed different opinions. The Army chain of command was therefore subject to a degree of different advice, which is regrettable.
	The Metropolitan police investigation was obviously hampered by the circumstances in Iraq. A particular difficulty was that the Metropolitan police had to secure the confidence of Mr. Zaher's family in order to have access to his body and conduct an autopsy. That took some time. We did not get the autopsy results—in final form, at least—until February. In March, Treasury counsel offered an opinion to the CPS, which was then able to inform us of its final conclusion.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this tragic series of events has been fully investigated and that the soldiers involved can move on, knowing that their position has been clearly set out and that there are no circumstances in which anyone could argue that they should be prosecuted.

Simon Hughes: The whole House will join the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in expressing sympathy to Sergeant Steven Roberts' wife, Mrs. Samantha Roberts, his mother and the rest of the family, and, indeed, to the family of Mr. Zaher. As we all know, it has taken the three years and a month that has passed since those tragic deaths—it is almost three years to the day since Sergeant Roberts' funeral—to resolve this issue. However, I welcome the fact that a clear conclusion has now been reached. I agree with the Solicitor-General that it is the right one and that it should put an end to this terrible period of uncertainty.
	I, too, recognise that in investigating these events and the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings in the complicated and difficult circumstances that surrounded the outset of this conflict, it would have been very unfair to judge that these soldiers, in doing what they thought they were duty bound to do—to support their colleagues—should be prosecuted in the criminal courts. They will be hugely relieved, as will their colleagues serving in Iraq and elsewhere. We pay tribute to the work that they do, usually without fear for themselves, and their willingness to take risks.
	In the light of this experience, the Armed Forces Bill and other related matters, are the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General satisfied that such a delay—a year and a quarter was spent on the internal investigation and the rest on an external civilian investigation—will not happen again in any foreseeable circumstances? That must be the major lesson for all concerned to learn. Secondly, like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I was slightly concerned by the Attorney-General's use of the phrase "insufficient evidence to prosecute". Were the same two tests that would normally be applied in any civilian case—whether there was a more than 50 per cent. chance of conviction, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed—applied in this case? I assume that they were, and that that is therefore the end of the matter.
	Thirdly, are we sure that the boundary between military investigation by the armed services' legal authorities and civilian investigation is now clear, both at home and abroad? The Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram)—he is in his place—knows that the Deepcut investigation raised the same issues: who should investigate and who should decide on prosecution? Will there be a speedy process to decide who investigates, in order to give maximum confidence?
	My final point links to one mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. On the responsibilities of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, are they seized of issues relating to a duty on the British Army and its management to ensure that service personnel go into the front line properly equipped? Is there such a duty of care, and will it always be fulfilled by ensuring that personnel have the kit, equipment, clothing and other materiel to allow them to do their duty safely and properly?

Mike O'Brien: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our armed forces. We ask a lot of them in very difficult circumstances, particularly in Iraq; throughout their period there, they have done Britain proud. As I have said, there are very few cases where an investigation has been necessary because our forces' behaviour has been outstanding. However, it is right that these investigations take place expeditiously. On the delays about which the hon. Gentleman asked, we believe that the new procedures will speed up the process. The Judge Advocate-General has instituted new court procedures, which are already paying dividends by ensuring that courts martial are heard more quickly. Moreover, as a result of this and other cases, the SIB has improved its procedures. I hope that the HMIC report, which we should receive in due course, will provide the advice that the SIB needs to enable it further to improve its carrying out of such investigations.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the same tests are applied in considering whether to prosecute, and the answer is yes. In this case, there was no realistic prospect of a conviction, so in a sense the public interest test did not need to be applied. The evidence did not substantiate initiating proceedings. On the link between Army and civilian courts, this Parliament has created circumstances in which it is appropriate for cases to be transferred from one jurisdiction to another. We firmly believe that the military courts system is very good. It has delivered justice very fairly across a range of issues, and we continue to have substantial faith in it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the duties of the Ministry of Defence, which is of course obliged to ensure that it provides soldiers serving in Iraq and elsewhere with proper equipment. The question of kevlar plates and the wearing of the appropriate protective jacket played no part in the legal decisions. Although the pathologist's evidence is not conclusive, it does suggest that, because Sergeant Roberts was shot in the torso, a protective jacket might have made a difference and might have saved his life. My colleagues in the MOD are taking account of that issue. I should point out that the MOD is not a body corporate, of course, and has Crown immunity in relation to such matters. That, in a sense, deals with the hon. Gentleman's point about legal duties.
	I repeat that I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our armed forces.

Philip Davies: As the Solicitor-General will know, Mrs. Roberts is a constituent of mine. All our thoughts go out to her and her family at what has obviously been an incredibly distressing time. I welcome the Solicitor-General's statement, particularly his saying that there will be no prosecution of the soldiers involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, this was clearly a tragic series of events, involving soldiers working in incredibly difficult circumstances. I also welcome the concern expressed about the length of time taken to resolve this situation, which can only have added to the distress experienced by Mrs. Roberts and the rest of Sergeant Roberts' family.
	The fact is that the main cause of Sergeant Roberts' death was the Government's insufficient preparation for the war in Iraq and the inadequacy of the kit. Tragically, Sergeant Roberts raised this issue himself in Iraq before he died. His wife has campaigned bravely on it, and I pay tribute to the courage that she has shown in that regard since her husband's death. She has acted with great dignity and she should be commended for that. I hope that, as a fitting tribute to Sergeant Roberts and the campaign fought by Mrs. Roberts, the Ministry of Defence will take note of the lessons to be learned and ensure that no other soldier dies, as Sergeant Roberts tragically died, because of inadequate kit.

Mike O'Brien: Of course, every death of a member of British service personnel is felt profoundly in the military family. All our thoughts are with Mrs. Roberts during these very difficult circumstances. She has been very concerned about the question of the protective equipment that her husband might have worn, and I am assured that the MOD has learned the lessons, is well aware of the circumstances of this case and is seeking to do all that it can to discharge its responsibilities to our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere.

Daniel Rogerson: I share the expressions of sympathy to Mrs. Roberts and the other members of Sergeant Roberts' family. I welcome the fact that the Solicitor-General said that investigations into incidents such as this will be conducted much more speedily in the future, and I am sure that we are all glad to hear that. The Solicitor-General will no doubt be aware that my predecessor, Lord Tyler, worked with the Roberts family in seeking to bring the matters surrounding the tragic death of Sergeant Roberts to the attention of the wider world.
	The issue of the lack of equipment that may have saved Sergeant Roberts' life is a matter of concern across Cornwall and the rest of the country. I welcome the Solicitor-General's assurances that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are investigating it and ensuring that such factors will not cause further deaths in future. However, can he tell us a little more about how investigations into that aspect of Sergeant Roberts' death impacted on the decision on whether to bring charges and the results of that consideration?

Mike O'Brien: The presence or otherwise of the protective jacket is a matter for the Ministry of Defence and others, and it did not have any substantial bearing on the legal decisions. In terms of the lawyers' examination of the evidence, the issue was whether the soldiers had acted appropriately and whether Mr. Zaher was posing a threat to them at the time. Those matters were looked at and conclusions were reached based on a full investigation and consideration of the evidence. The straight answer to his question is that the presence or absence of kevlar plates and a protective jacket was not, in legal terms at least, an issue that had a substantial bearing on the outcome of the case.

James Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his meticulous care in warning us of the statement that he has made today, and for its tone and content. He is right to say that our soldiers are not, and should never be, immune from prosecution. They are subject to the rule of law and that is what they are fighting for. The statement gives us a lot of information that we can look at now with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose the value of hindsight is that we can learn from it for the future.
	There are two aspects on which I hope that the Solicitor-General can comment. First, the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is one to which insufficient attention has perhaps been given. Secondly, the Solicitor-General referred to differences of view in the Army Legal Services. Given the fact that our soldiers are fighting on behalf of all us—and doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances—does he agree that more benefit of the doubt could be given to our soldiers in relation to prosecutions such as this?

Mike O'Brien: It is important that whenever we look at a case involving our soldiers engaged in active service areas, such as Iraq, we take into account the precise circumstances in which they are operating. When making a decision, we need to take into account the threat that soldiers may feel under and the background circumstances that they face. In looking at the evidence, those who make decisions on prosecution—be it the APA or the Crown Prosecution Service, as in this case—will consider those circumstances. Therefore, I do not think that we need to change the test.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. Delays such as those in this case are regrettable, but it is also important that we have a full and thorough investigation. What we cannot have is a situation in which people make allegations that there has been some kind of cover up. They cannot do so here, because the case has been fully and properly investigated on several occasions. No criticism can now attach to the thoroughness of the investigation. If we demand that other countries comply with international law and basic standards, we must show that we do to. This case shows that. We have conducted a full investigation and reached a conclusion based on the evidence. That is what we ask other countries to do and that is what we must continue to do ourselves.

Ben Wallace: I am afraid that I will not be so charitable towards the statement, but that is perhaps because, as a former soldier, I know too well the effects that delay and such investigations have on the morale of soldiers, their families and units—especially those in the front line.
	The Solicitor-General said that the case was started because it might have been perceived that British soldiers shot an unarmed civilian. However, at the end of his statement he said that if there is an allegation of wrongdoing and supporting evidence following an investigation, charges will be brought. Is it not the case that there was not actually an allegation of wrongdoing in this case, but that yet again commanding officers and units in the front line—who know the environment, as did the local Army Legal Services staff—were overruled for reasons of perception, not reasons of correct justice?

Mike O'Brien: There was, regrettably, an allegation of improper behaviour. The independent Iraqi civilian who made some allegations put forward a version of events that did not include the shooting of Sergeant Roberts, but did suggest that the behaviour of the troopers involved had not been appropriate. That was discovered at a later stage, but it is clear that perceptions might have arisen after an unarmed civilian had been shot. It is right that when that occurs, the British Army should protect itself by having a proper, full and thorough investigation so that it can say that it acted lawfully and properly, that it is not above the law and that it does things the right way. To suggest that there should not have been a full investigation is just plain wrong and it would undermine the very basis on which our Army claims to act. It is right and appropriate that there should have been a full investigation. It was carried out, and those soldiers can now say that it was done and they were cleared.

Brian Jenkins: In my hon. and learned Friend's statement he said that there were "inconsistencies" in the accounts provided by the soldiers. Does he recognise that there are always inconsistencies in statements given by witnesses? If there are no inconsistencies, the witnesses are deemed to have colluded before giving their evidence. It also rankles with some of us that after an extensive inquiry the statement concludes that there is "insufficient evidence" to institute criminal proceedings in this case. We have the evidence—surely it shows that there is no case to answer.

Mike O'Brien: It is the case that there is insufficient evidence and therefore there is no case to answer. I am afraid that lawyers tend to use legal terminology, and the public have a right to know that the conclusion is that there is not a case to be answered in the criminal courts. My hon. Friend mentioned inconsistencies. The incident took place in the early stages of the armed conflict in Iraq and soldiers were clearly under a great deal of stress. The circumstances were confusing, including the fact that the machine gun was set to fire at a greater distance than events required. There were a series of factors that led to an element of confusion and, therefore, it is not unlikely that accounts should display inconsistencies. Anyone who has experience of hearing witnesses give evidence in court will know that there are often honest inconsistencies.

Tobias Ellwood: As a former soldier, I share in the tributes paid to our servicemen and women who represent our country abroad. They do a difficult job. I also share the thoughts for the families who face pressures when servicemen or women are abroad.
	I draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to a written answer from the former Secretary of State for Defence, in which he stated that Sergeant Roberts' wife
	"was provided with a summary of the incident on 18 June 2003 by the Casualty Visiting Officer".—[Official Report, 22 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1392W.]
	As everybody is aware, Sergeant Roberts' death took place five days into the conflict on 24 March 2003, so there is a two-month difference. Does the Solicitor-General agree that two months was far too long to draw out the basic facts of the case and provide them to the widow in those tragic circumstances? Some people have said that the reason for the delay and for allowing the argument about enhanced body armour to run in the media was to cover up the fact that it was a case of friendly fire. There are many lessons to be learned about improving communications to stop rumours spreading, especially in the British press, which do not help the morale of the troops and do not help us in communicating exactly what happened.

Mike O'Brien: It is important that families are given as much information as is reasonable as early as possible and that the information is accurate, which means that there must be some degree of investigation of it. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) that sometimes there are inconsistencies in statements and all sorts of issues arise, especially in a conflict zone. There were difficulties in returning to the site to gather forensic evidence. I am sorry that Mrs. Roberts had to wait so long for a description of what had happened to her husband. That is obviously distressing, but it is important that when a description is given it is as accurate as possible, which requires investigation and that requires time. It would have been even worse, however, if Mrs. Roberts had been given one explanation and then over time, as new evidence emerged, it was changed time and again. I suspect that that would lead to even greater distress.
	The media do not have to be accurate when they report things. The Government and the Ministry of Defence at least try to be as accurate as we reasonably can in the information we give. It is important that time is taken. The media want the story tomorrow, but the Government have to get the full story out as accurately as possible, which may take a bit more time and in some cases, such as this one, a substantial degree of extra time.

Richard Younger-Ross: I had the privilege of visiting Iraq in June 2003 as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. During our time there, I spent nearly 24 hours with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. I ate with the soldiers, talked to them and went on patrol with them in a Challenger tank. The point they made about Sergeant Roberts' death was that he did not have kevlar; I understand that he had in fact been given kevlar but asked to give it to another soldier. They clearly believe that the lack of that protection led to his death. Should not the Government look into whether the forces should have a duty of care to ensure that the basic safety equipment required for front-line duties is actually provided? The family of Sergeant Roberts could then have taken a case against the services for their failure to protect his life. He gave his life for his country.

Mike O'Brien: The Ministry of Defence always has to be risk-aware and, where it can, provide the appropriate equipment, but there is no such thing as a risk-free environment, and certainly not in Iraq; our soldiers and other service persons run risks when they are on active service. My earlier comment that the MOD has looked at the case and sought to learn lessons is appropriate. The MOD will seek to provide appropriate equipment and to ensure that soldiers have whatever protection can reasonably be given, but no circumstances, not least in Iraq, are without some degree of risk.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Northern Ireland Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Preparations for Restoration of Devolved Government

Mark Durkan: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
	'(including proposals to give effect to the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883)'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
	'(1A) Each candidate for either office under subsection (1)(a) above must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.'.
	No. 17, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
	'(1A) Two candidates standing jointly for the purposes of an election under subsection (1)(a) above shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of—
	(a) a majority of the members voting in the election,
	(b) a majority of the designated Nationalists voting, and
	(c) a majority of the designated Unionists voting.'.
	No. 21, in schedule 1, page 4, line 5, leave out first 'Assembly' and insert 'Forum'.
	No. 22, in page 4, line 5, leave out second 'Assembly' and insert 'Forum'.
	No. 8, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
	'and to give effect to the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883.'.
	No. 23, in page 4, line 15, leave out sub-sub-paragraph 1(a).
	No. 4, in page 4, line 18, leave out from 'officers' to end of line 19.
	No. 25, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
	'(1A) A person shall not be elected under sub-sub-paragraph 3(1)(b) above or sub-sub-paragraph 3(3)(b) below without cross-community support.
	(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A) above "cross-community support" shall have the same meaning as in subsection 39(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.'.
	No. 24, in page 4, line 26, leave out sub-sub-paragraph 3(a).
	No. 26, in page 4, line 32, leave out paragraph 4.
	No. 27, in page 5, line 18, leave out paragraph 6.
	No. 6, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
	'Assembly control of Orders in Council
	7 Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the 2000 Act is replaced by—
	"Parliamentary and Assembly control of Orders in Council
	2(1) Except where sub-paragraph (2) applies, an Order in Council may not be made under paragraph 1(1) unless each of the following conditions is met—
	(a) Condition 1 is that a draft of the Order has been referred under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 to the Assembly;
	(b) Condition 2 is that a meeting of the Assembly has taken place at which it has had the opportunity to consider the draft of the Order;
	(c) Condition 3 is that the Assembly at that meeting has not expressed by resolution passed with cross-community support its opposition to the draft of the Order;
	(d) Condition 4 is that the draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(2) This sub-paragraph applies where the Order declares that the Secretary of State has advised Her Majesty that because of the urgency of the matter it is necessary to make the Order without meeting any of the conditions in sub-paragraph (1).
	(3) Where an Order contains a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) it—
	(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and
	(b) ceases to have effect if it is not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of the relevant period.
	(4) Where an Order contains a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) it—
	(a) must be referred to the Assembly under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 after being made; and
	(b) ceases to have effect if before the end of the relevant period—
	(i) the Assembly has not had an opportunity to consider the Order; or
	(ii) the Assembly has passed a resolution with cross community support expressing its opposition to the Order.
	(5) But sub-paragraphs (3)(b) and (4)(b) do not prejudice—
	(a) anything done under the Order before it ceased to have effect; or
	(b) the making of a new Order.
	(6) In this paragraph—
	"the Assembly" means the Assembly referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2006;
	"the relevant period" means the period of 40 days beginning with the date on which the Order is made.'.

Mark Durkan: We covered many matters yesterday on Second Reading. We have tabled amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 6 to clause 1. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may refer certain matters to the Assembly that is to be set up under the Bill, namely, the   election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the operation of d'Hondt and such other matters as the Secretary of State sees fit.
	The clause makes it clear that suspension does not end with the creation of the Assembly. It provides that the Assembly is to be composed of people who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so there is a clear legal distinction between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Assembly. So far, the Secretary of State has not coloured in exactly which other matters he might see fit to refer to the Assembly. There were various exchanges between Governments and parties in the run-up to the statement made by the two premiers in Armagh, which preceded the Secretary of State's announcement of the Bill last week. The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to try to probe further into which other matters the Assembly might consider.
	Elsewhere in the measure, it is made clear what will happen if restoration does not occur by 25 November. The Assembly set up by the legislation will be wound up and the Secretary of State has made it clear that Assembly Members will lose their jobs. We accept that, as we have been told, the Assembly is not a shadow Assembly—so it is not even a shadow of its former self. It should not continue indefinitely. We do not want an endless talking shop of any kind, but the Government are making a mistake if they think that the deadline will worry those who may not be in a hurry to form an inclusive Executive by that date. Talk of closing the book on devolution and talk, such as we heard yesterday, of bringing the curtain down on the process that has been in operation since 1998 could appeal to a party such as the Democratic Unionist party, which still says that its aim is to remove and replace the Belfast agreement.
	The proposals that may or may not exist on joint stewardship in the event of the Assembly being wound up if there is failure by 25 November do not extend to anything that might look like joint authority—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been at pains to state that here last week and this week—so it would seem that perhaps we are talking about some sort of direct rule with knobs on at best. Again, I am not sure whether that will particularly appeal to anyone to whom the deadline is meant to appeal, and I am not sure whether it will scare or frighten anyone whom the deadline is supposed to worry in that sense.
	It would suit those in the DUP in many ways for everything to be wound up at that stage and for attempts to be made in the direction of joint authority, to which they can then galvanise opposition and claim success in those attempts and, indeed, in burying the agreement, as they would see it. There is a danger that parties could have an incentive to play it out to failure on 25 November. Indeed, that incentive could also extend not just to the DUP, but to those in Sinn Fein who, for their own reasons, might be quite happy for us to reach a situation where the onus is on the two Governments to produce an alternative after 25 November. Of course, they can then galvanise and criticise when that is not good enough from their perspective either. Of course, they would be happy to blame the collapse by 25 November on the DUP.
	The danger is that, after 25 November, the Northern Ireland Assembly might not be a given, the Assembly created by the Bill might be gone and a worthwhile alternative from the two Governments might not be a given and not be available. It might well be that the only given that we will have then is the outcome of the review of public administration—the seven super-councils, the repartition in waiting and the deep Balkanisation of our society—and in those circumstances, parties might well start to turn their attentions to how they build up their powers and bases in those new local government institutions, rather than concentrating on how we deliver the vision for devolution that the people ofNorthern Ireland endorsed when they voted overwhelmingly for the agreement.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Why are those the only options available to the political parties in Northern Ireland? There is still the option of voluntary coalition, and my party has said many times to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, in the absence of Sinn Fein-IRA completing the journey to democracy, peace and the rule of law, we are prepared to go into government tomorrow with them, so there are other options on the table, including the proposals that the hon. Gentleman and his party have made.

Mark Durkan: If the hon. Gentleman looks at amendment No. 7, he will see that it would allow people to consider and argue about other such proposals, to test one another and to press one another on them. However, the fact is that we could face a dangerous situation after 25 November if we have failed by that stage and if the language used is that of closing the book on devolution and therefore closing the book on the agreement for the foreseeable future. We could end up in circumstances that no one has advocated, no one has argued for and certainly no one has voted for in voting for any party. That is why I believe that, in the period that we have, if it looks as though we are not making progress to form the inclusive Executive and getting the First Minister and Deputy First Minister elected in the due way, it might well be appropriate, if the parties agree, to look at some options that still allow us to make progress that is consistent with the Good Friday agreement and that allows suspension to end—not to continue and prolong this kind of half-baked, twilight zone Assembly, but to create one that allows us to end direct rule and to restore the Assembly with its powers, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) refers to our proposals in the past. Our proposals were made more than two years ago. They did not require IRA decommissioning or anything else—it would have been restoration there and then, or restoration here and now—and if the Assembly were to discuss options such as ours, other parties would be free to propose other options. I urge the Secretary of State to make it clear that the Assembly will have the potential to maximise the agreement's implementation. That is made clear in amendment No. 7, and we would like to hear that the Government will consider that, rather than pushing to a position that would simply allow others to declare the agreement dead.
	We recognise in that context not only that we will be trying to test others with alternatives and better ways to find a more definite approach to implementing the agreement, but that other parties will be testing us with their proposals, some of which, of course, would involve departing from the agreement. However, if the purpose of the Assembly is, as we have been told over the past few weeks, to provide a forum where all the parties can discuss things and where side deals are not going on and if the Assembly is the locus for political discussions, it seems to me that, given such political discussions as the Government know they will have with the parties, the parties should be able to have discussions with one another in public view in the context of the Assembly created by the Bill.
	I will not speak to the amendments tabled by other hon. Members. We have also tabled amendments Nos. 8 and 6 in this group. The purpose of amendment No. 8 is simple: to make it clear that the purpose of the Assembly created by the Bill is to give effect to the Good Friday agreement. The House should have no problem with that because, after all, section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, which set up the original shadow Assembly, contained similar wording, and the Secretary of State has told us that much of the Bill has been drawn from that original 1998 Act. If it was okay then, and the purpose of the Bill is to get us to implement the agreement, we see no reason why that cannot be made clear upfront in the legislation now.
	I will now address amendment No. 6—and as I said yesterday, the key to our approach is whether the Bill offers a path to restoration or whether it offers the sort of talking shop that the DUP have advocated. We recognise from what we have seen to date that the Bill may offer both. It could be a path to restoration in that, if we elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and run the d'Hondt system and everyone takes the pledge of office, the Secretary of State will restore the institutions. Certainly, we would welcome that—we want to see those things happen—and we will be there, taking our place in the Assembly, to try to make them happen.

Gregory Campbell: Again, the hon. Gentleman alludes to two distinct things: either a talking shop, which he appears to believe, wrongly, is an option that the DUP wants, or a restitution of the institutions, which is obviously what he wants. Can he open his mind to the fact that this may in fact evolve into something that is neither of those?

Mark Durkan: I look forward to hearing more from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about some of what they have in mind, but so long as we are in the Assembly created by the Bill and not a restored one, I certainly want to ensure that the elected representatives in that Assembly can use their time as productively as possible. I do not want the considerations that its Members then have to be meaningless and weightless.
	The fact is that the Secretary of State is given the power in clause 1(1) to refer to "such other matters as" he "thinks fit" to the Assembly created by the Bill. Obviously, that refers back to the statement by the two Governments on 6 April. We are told that the Secretary of State and Ministers would take account of motions passed with cross-community support on matters such as water rates and the review of public administration. It is hard for people to put much weight on such verbal indications from the Government in circumstances where the Government have consistently failed to respect the will of parties, as clearly expressed on a cross-community basis outside the Assembly during suspension.
	How are we to believe that the Government will respect the views of Assembly Members in that Assembly? Will "take account of" extend to "abide by the will of"? That is what amendment No. 6 tests. It would give the temporary Assembly created by the Bill a temporary power for the life of that Assembly, by cross-community vote, to veto Orders in Council. That would not be a veto in the hands of one party or another party, or one community interest or another community interest, but a veto, for the life of the temporary Assembly, in the hands of a cross-community majority in that Assembly.
	If the Secretary of State cannot accept amendment No. 6, I will have to ask what reason he can offer to Members of the Legislative Assembly for attending work in the Assembly to deal with such other matters as he might refer to it. If the clear and overwhelming views of the Assembly on matters such as industrial de-rating, water charges and the review of public administration will have no binding impact on what the Government do, it is hard to see how people will be well motivated in that work. It is also hard to see how the variety of policy communities and sectoral interests will take the Assembly seriously in that context. If the Secretary of State, who is creating and will control the Assembly, does not take it seriously, it is hard to expect or rely on all its Members, and certainly the wider public, to take it seriously.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Having read amendment No. 6, it seems that the hon. Gentleman seeks a negative power for the Assembly to veto Orders in Council. How does he consider that the Assembly will work in terms of positive powers? What positive powers does he think the Assembly should have and how much budgetary control does he think it should have?

Mark Durkan: To give the Assembly positive powers on a cross-community basis would, in effect, give one community or another, or one party or another, a veto on positive proposals and that would not be constructive in this situation. We do not want to give life to any sort of diversionary, half-baked Assembly. In so far as we are faced with this Assembly, which would not have been our choice—we wanted to go for full restoration—we will make the most of what is put in front of us, but we are not going to give life to something that diverges significantly from the agreement.
	This is a temporary Assembly. If the idea of the 25 November deadline is to concentrate minds and to say to parties, "You will face serious consequences if you let all this fizzle out and the prospect of devolution turn to dust," giving that temporary Assembly the temporary power of political estoppel on matters that are clearly unpopular in the Northern Ireland community, would at least let people know that, if there is failure by 25 November, the effect of that power of estoppel will go. People will know that the community will pay a price and hopefully then parties will pay a price in front of the community for having allowed their success in stopping and preventing some of thesemeasures to evaporate, because obviously the Government are then free to return to implement those measures under direct rule.
	Concentrating and galvanising the power of that incentive makes the deadline count for far more. It will give people in the wider community—the various policy communities and sectoral interests—some mission and purpose in looking to the temporary Assembly to send a signal of a real prospect of better policy outcomes for them. They will be pressing parties to make the most of the situation and to make sure that we have success before 25 November, not failure. That is the purpose of amendment No. 6. I will not address the other amendments in detail.

Sammy Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the explanation of that amendment. Does he accept that there is a disincentive to proceed with any Assembly if such matters are pushed through in the meantime, anyhow, and therefore it would be important for the amendment to be accepted?

Mark Durkan: I take fully the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the corollary of the point that I have just made—it is the other side of the coin. Given the point that the Government are at in pushing through some of these disagreeable measures, people might well have cause to allow the failure of the exercise so that they do not have to take responsibility for managing and steering those affairs from then on. So long as they can blame somebody else for that failure, they are home in a boat, as they would see it. I take his point and I hope that the Secretary of State is persuaded by the fact that there is a clear, strong argument, in terms of realpolitik, for this particular amendment.
	I will not speak to the amendments that we do not support. In this group, we are supportive of the amendments from the Ulster Unionist party on ensuring that the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers is carried out absolutely on the basis that was specified in the Good Friday agreement.

Lady Hermon: May I put on the record my deep appreciation of the House authorities and, in particular, the Public Bill Office for accepting amendments at very short notice? The Bill was introduced and published only last Thursday. By virtue of the fact that it was introduced so late, amendments had to be late, but I appreciate, most sincerely, the great leniency that has been shown by the Public Bill Office.
	May I also say what a delight it is to see the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and also the Secretary of State in their places—for the entire debate, we hope? May I just say to the Secretary of State that I do know that there has been a death in his family? I extend my deepest condolences to him and I am sure that they will be shared by everyone in the House.
	We have a lively debate ahead of us and a number of the amendments that stand in my name are in this first group, under clause 1, "Preparations for restoration of devolved government". I will briefly indicate what the amendments relate to and then speak to them in more detail. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 deal with the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers, which I wish to see carried out by means of a joint election, with both names on the same ticket.
	Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 deal with the name of the new creature that we discussing. As I indicated yesterday, I find it disturbing that the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister constantly refer to this new creature as the Assembly. In the minds of the people of Northern Ireland, that conjures up the idea that it is the same as the Northern Ireland Assembly. Of course, it is a very pale shadow of the former Northern Ireland Assembly; it is a talking shop. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 seek to christen it a "Forum" rather than an assembly.
	Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which stand in my name, deal with the election of the Presiding Officer. I take exception to the Secretary of State taking to himself even more power. I know that those concerns are shared by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). We have not had discussions in the Tea Room about elections, but I hope that he and the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) will support the taking away of additional Executive powers from the Secretary of State, which is what is embodied in my amendments.
	Amendment No. 24 deals with the replacement of any Presiding Officer. Again, the Secretary of State is taking the power to replace any Presiding Officer or deputy, or to fill a vacancy. I hope that I will have the support of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) for amendment No. 26, which would remove the power of the Secretary of State to control proceedings in the Assembly by directions. Amendment No. 27 deals with the privilege of Members of the Legislative Assembly. I admit that it is a probing amendment, but its purpose is to find out why when MLAs take up their posts in the new body and sit again in Stormont, their statements will have limited privilege.
	Perhaps I can deal with the amendments in reverse order. If anything emphasises to the entire House that the new creature will not be the old Assembly, it is paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which amendment No. 27 would remove. The provision sets out the limited privilege that will be attached to statements made by the 108 MLAs. I think that I am right in saying that all Democratic Unionist party Members who sit in the House are also Assembly Members. Indeed, apart from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), all Social Democratic and Labour party Members are Assembly Members. They will be curious to find that the law is being redrafted to reduce what can be said with privilege in the new Assembly.
	The Northern Ireland Act 1998 could be described as the constitution of Northern Ireland because, according to its long title, it is the main piece of legislation for the "government of Northern Ireland". The Secretary of State and Assembly Members will know that according to section 50 of that Act:
	"For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to . . . the making of a statement in proceedings of the Assembly; and . . . the publication of a statement under the Assembly's authority."
	The 108 MLAs thus have absolute privilege, but paragraph 6 of schedule 1 will take that away. This does not affect me, as the Member for North Down, because I do not sit in the Assembly, but I am genuinely worried about why the 108 Assembly Members who return will find that their privilege has suddenly been reduced.
	According to paragraph 6 of schedule 1:
	"A written or oral statement made by a member in or for the purposes of the Assembly is to be privileged from action for defamation unless it is proved to have been made with malice."
	Will the Secretary of State or the Minister kindly comment on the impact that the provision might have on any publication of the new Assembly, or, indeed, any media coverage of its proceedings? Why will the absolute privilege attached to Members of the old Northern Ireland Assembly—the proper Assembly—not carry through to the new creature?

Derek Conway: I have sympathy with the hon. Lady and hope to support amendment No. 26, which she tabled, in due course. Does she know how the question of privilege for the Assembly relates to what goes on in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

Lady Hermon: I, as the Member for North Down, could not possibly comment on the business and proceedings of the Welsh Assembly, but we are greatly honoured and benefited by having in the Chamber a Secretary of State who is not only Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure that his knowledge also extends to the Scottish Parliament, so we look forward to clarification of the situation for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly from the person who is best qualified to comment.

Alan Reid: I cannot speak for the Welsh Assembly, but I assure the hon. Lady that the Scottish Parliament has absolute privilege.

Lady Hermon: That is most helpful.

Patrick Cormack: I think that the hon. Lady will find that the same applies to the Welsh Assembly.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful for those two interventions.

Peter Robinson: rose—

Lady Hermon: I might as well take a third intervention, especially as I am sure that it will be helpful.

Peter Robinson: I hope that the hon. Lady does not cancel our engagement for tea.
	Does the hon. Lady realise that the Northern Ireland Assembly still holds full privilege? We are discussing not that Assembly, but a new creation with a specific purpose. The Government judge that the purpose for which the new Assembly will be sitting may not require full privilege. What distinction does she draw between that full privilege and the privilege that will be extended to the new Assembly, which will require people to prove that malice was intended? How on earth will that be short of full privilege? I suspect that no one will be able to prove that someone has made a statement with malice in mind.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which I am sure was intended to be helpful. He helped to clarify and reinforce a point that I made at the start of my comments on the amendment: if any measure in the Bill jumps off the page to reinforce the fact that the body will be not the Northern Ireland Assembly in shadow or devolved mode, but a new creature, it is the change to the law on absolute privilege.
	I simply wish to know from the Secretary of State or the Minister the impact that the measure will have on those in the media who genuinely report what is said. According to the Bill, the privilege attaches to the Members. Unlike under section 50 of the 1998 Act, it will not extend to publications from the Assembly. The media perhaps have the most to lose financially as a result of the measure, so they may also want clarification.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While the hon. Lady has been talking, I have had the opportunity to read section 50 of the 1998 Act, which is, indeed, widely drawn. What worries me about paragraph 6 of schedule 1 of the Bill is how intent and malice would be proved. Would it be possible that the measure would put the leader of the Assembly in an invidious position? The leader might become involved in court proceedings to rule on whether something was said with malice.

Lady Hermon: The Secretary of State has already chosen an individual to be the Presiding Officer, although I do not think that he had the authority—certainly not under the 1998 Act—to appoint any individual as a Presiding Officer. I assume that he has discussed the new law on defamation and privilege with the nominated Presiding Officer.

Peter Hain: I understand why the hon. Lady is worried about the measure. Although I could have waited until my reply to make this point, it is important that I do so now. The arrangements are exactly the same—I think that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was alluding to this point—as those that applied in 1998 before we had a fully-fledged Assembly and restoration. All that I am doing is reproducing those arrangements, and I think that it is entirely appropriate to do so.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Secretary of State for his helpful intervention. I just hope that those in the media who intend to reflect and comment on the body's proceedings will do better than they have in recent days by describing the new creature as "the Assembly".

Patrick Cormack: Does not the Secretary of State's intervention underline the fact that the hon. Lady is wise to use the word "creature", because the new Assembly is in every sense the creature of the Secretary of the State? It is not legally elected. It is appointed by him. The Presiding Officer is appointed him. Although its Members will be the Members who were elected to the Assembly, the body that we are discussing is not the Assembly.

The Chairman: Order. I should not have to remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address the Chair. In not doing so, he also takes his voice off microphone, which is a complication for the Official Report.

Patrick Cormack: I humbly apologise, Sir Alan.

Lady Hermon: I think that all contributions, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State, have been helpful.
	I will move on, because I think we ought to—[Interruption.] If I am encouraged to move on quickly by a DUP Member, I will of course invite that Member to contribute to the debate.

Ian Paisley: May I remind the hon. Lady that I was the first person to bring the "creature" to the attention of the House? I called the Minister to attention and told him straight that it was not the old Assembly, but a new creature. The hon. Lady is not the only person to make that great finding. We all know that the body is not the old Assembly—it is not the old Assembly resurrected, even. It is a new body, designed by certain people who feel that this is the way they should go. We are going to take on board what they say and go away, but we will see how far we get.

Lady Hermon: I was not claiming to myself anything new. I was particularly pleased that yesterday, at the beginning of the Secretary of State's contribution on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was quick off his feet to correct the Secretary of State, who had referred to the Assembly coming back. Lest there by any doubt whatever, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Antrim for pointing out, quite rightly, that we are discussing a new body. I regret it if I suggested otherwise. That was not my intention.
	However, the right hon. Gentleman does reinforce the need for amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which would christen the body a "Forum" rather than the "Assembly". I have referred to media reports giving the impression that the new institution—the new Assembly—is not a different institution. The two are being confused in the minds of the media, at least, but they are certainly not confused in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman, his colleagues, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the one Ulster Unionist.
	The Financial Times for Thursday 27 April states:
	"Mr Hain is recalling the province's assembly on 15 May."
	The Belfast Telegraph for Wednesday 26 April states:
	"The report"—
	the Independent Monitoring Commission report—
	"which says paramilitary activity is at a three-year low—seems likely to guarantee a smooth start to Assembly sittings in 18 days".
	Again, that gives the impression that the new body is the old Assembly, which it clearly is not. That is why my amendments would call the new creature—with, I am sure, the endorsement of the right hon. Gentleman—a forum, or a talking shop, because that would be a more appropriate description than the confusing double title of the Assembly.

Nigel Dodds: I know that the hon. Lady has gone to considerable lengths to prove the nature of the body. Has she looked at the provisions in paragraph 2 of schedule 2, which deals with making the restoration order and, if we so decide in this Assembly, the things that will be carried over to the Northern Ireland Assembly on restoration? In particular, sub-paragraph (8) provides that by virtue of the restoration order, things that have been done here, will be treated as having been done in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a good point. I have done some homework on schedule 2. He is right. As he will see when we reach a later group of amendments, I am particularly concerned about the pledges of office and, for example, the idea that
	"the presiding officer of the Assembly immediately before the effective date shall be deemed to have been elected"
	as the Presiding Officer of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. I am most taken aback by things that have been deemed to have been done in one place being carried over to the reconstituted Assembly, which I genuinely hope to see.

Ian Paisley: Is it not right to remember that the Presiding Officer of the Assembly was never elected by the Assembly? He was chosen by the powers that be, and that was never rectified or done away with. He just took his place and stayed there—and for far too long as far as I was concerned.

Lady Hermon: I hope I do not misrepresent the views expressed, but I take it that the DUP, and certainly its leader, would prefer to select the Presiding Officer as it is they who sit in the Assembly, rather than have a Presiding Officer nominated, appointed and swept into power. That is no criticism of the individual herself, but it is an appointment that has been made, and it will be deemed to take effect under the Bill by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I take it that that is an endorsement of my point.
	If I could just move to amendment No. 26—

Gregory Campbell: Hear, hear.

Lady Hermon: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic for me to move to the removal of the directions that can be given by the Secretary of State to conduct the proceedings of the Assembly.
	Amendment No. 26 would remove paragraph 4 from schedule 1. It states:
	"Proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with directions determined by the Secretary of State from time to time and notified to the presiding officer or any deputy presiding officer."
	I hardly think any hon. Member would take exception to removing such wide Executive powers from the Secretary of State. I was reminded of words, wisely spoken, by the right hon. Member for North Antrim, and I am sure that I will find myself on his Christmas card list by the end of my comments. With reference to, I regret to say, the late Mo Mowlam, the right hon. Member for Redcar and then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he made a helpful statement as far back as 22 April 1998.
	It was the leader of the DUP who said, with reference to standing orders:
	"Who makes those standing orders? It is the Secretary of State, and if she does not like what is going on, she can change them at any time. Is that democracy?"
	He continued:
	"The Secretary of State could sit in her office and say, 'I don't like the way the assembly carried out its business yesterday. Here is a new order. Send that off to the Clerk and call them to order.' Is that democracy? If hon. Members think that it is, let them vote for it, but the people of Northern Ireland are aghast."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 874.]
	I could not have put it better myself, if I may say so to the right hon. Member for North Antrim.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Lady should read more of Hansard.

Lady Hermon: I shall endeavour to do so. I do, of course, read the right hon. Gentleman's words in Hansard. I may not agree with half of what he says, but I thoroughly enjoy reading what he says. I therefore expect the DUP and certainly the right hon. Gentleman to support the removal of schedule 1, paragraph 4, which allows the Secretary of State to direct the proceedings of the Assembly. That is not acceptable in any democracy.
	Moving on to the election of the Presiding Officer, under the Bill the Secretary of State has the opportunity, and he has taken the opportunity, to appoint a Presiding Officer. Schedule 1, paragraph 3 states:
	"The Secretary of State may—
	(a) appoint a presiding officer and no more than three deputy presiding officers, or
	(b) authorise the Assembly"
	to do so. I wish to remove the power of the Secretary of State to appoint a Presiding Officer and Deputies, and to ensure that that is the task of the 108 Assembly Members. That is what they are there for. According to section 39 of the 1998 Act, which, I repeat, is the constitution of Northern Ireland and sets out the governance of Northern Ireland,
	"Each Assembly shall as its first business elect from among its members a Presiding Officer and deputies."
	Let us see the 108 Assembly Members doing what they were elected to do when the proper Assembly is restored. Any Presiding Officer should have the cross-community support of the House.
	Finally, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relating to the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Amendment No. 16 would ensure that
	"Each candidate for either office"—
	that is, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—
	"must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office."
	Amendment No. 17 reads:
	"Two candidates standing jointly for the purposes of an election under subsection (1)(a) above shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of—
	(a) a majority of the members voting in the election,
	(b) a majority of the designated Nationalists voting, and
	(c) a majority of the designated Unionists voting."
	I wish to see that written into the Bill.
	I was delighted to receive a draft copy of the standing orders, which arrived in my office this morning. Before the Bill has seen much daylight and before it has been seen or discussed in the other place, it is rather unusual procedure that the Secretary of State has already sent out draft standing orders for consultation. I wonder where the authority came from for him to do so.
	I was pleased that on page 8 of those draft standing orders, it is proposed by the Secretary of State that
	"Each candidate for either office must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office",
	and that
	"Two candidates standing jointly shall not be elected to the offices without the support of a majority of the members voting in the election, a majority of designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting."
	That is from paragraph 17 of the draft standing orders. Either the Secretary of State had the benefit of seeing my amendments, or great minds might, on occasion, think alike.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Sir Michael. I understood that it was a convention of the House that if the Government sent out papers that were to be discussed in a debate, those papers should be available to the whole Committee. As far as I am aware, the papers are not available in the Vote Office or on the Table of the House. Could you ask the Minister to make them available as soon as possible so that we can benefit from them in the debate?

Michael Lord: I am not clear which papers the hon. Gentleman means.

Patrick Cormack: Those from which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) quoted.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The draft standing orders of the Assembly.

The Second Deputy Chairman: No doubt the Minister has heard the request.

Peter Hain: I am grateful, Mr. Lord. [Hon. Members: "Sir Michael."] I am grateful, Sir Michael, and apologise for that discourtesy. I circulated the draft standing orders in good faith to all Members of the Legislative Assembly and made it clear in my statement last week that I intended to do that on publication, which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) may not have heard. I am happy to make them available to him or to anybody else. No disrespect was intended to anybody. A copy is available in the Library.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I trust that that adequately deals with the point of order, and that there is no reason for us to interrupt our business because of it.

Lembit �pik: I begin by speaking to amendment No. 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and is a probing amendment. It is linked to amendment No. 5, in that it deals with the extent to which the Assembly can decide matters for itself. We are curious about the phrase
	in such manner as the Secretary of State may specify.
	Does that mean that the Assembly will be able to choose a Presiding Officer or deputies not of the Secretary of State's choosing if it so wishes, or will the Assembly be able only to confirm the Secretary of State's choices? That is important.
	I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the previous Speaker was universally admired and respectedI see a smile leaking from those on the DUP Benchesand he did not stay long enough, but he has gone now. I pay tribute in advance to Eileen Bell, who I think will be a superb Presiding Officer, but if the Assembly wanted to change that appointmentI hope it would notwould it have the capacity to do so? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were tabled by the SDLP. Command Paper 3883, as we know, is the Good Friday agreement. I am slightly concerned that the aim behind the amendments might be to ensure that no changes are made to the operation of the Assembly and the Good Friday agreement.
	It is recognised that there have been difficulties in the operation of certain aspects of the agreement. Perhaps the most obvious of those was the use of designations. Who can forget the fiasco of autumn 2001, when members of the Alliance party had to pretend to be Unionists for five minutes in order to facilitate the election of a First and Deputy First Minister? That occurred despite the fact that over 70 per cent. of Assembly Members voted for David Trimble and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to take up those positions. That is fundamentally wrong. If the amendments would prevent a change, they would enshrine some rather bad practice.

Mark Durkan: rose

Lembit �pik: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to clarify that point, I shall be happy to give way.

Mark Durkan: I wish the amendments, if they are made, would have the effect of preventing any changes. They would not. The Secretary of State told us earlier that much of the Bill reproduces much of what was in the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, and the amendment does the same: it reproduces a provision that was in the original Act.

Lembit �pik: It reproduces some of the flaws, too.

Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that when the Deputy First Minister resigned, his resignation was mentioned at the Dispatch Box, and eulogies were offered. The then Secretary of State discovered that he had not resigned at all, and his motor car, free phone and all his servants had to be reinstated. That was approved by the House, and anyone who voted against it was regarded as a leper.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman makes a self-contained point, and we hear him loud and clear. His youthful exuberance is a delight in these debates and his impish cheekiness lifts everyone's spirits. I hope he will retain those characteristics as he matures.
	To return to past mistakes, the Bill provided an opportunity to solve the problem of designation, which, I accept, was proposed as a way of ensuring cross-community consent. However, it contributes to the reinforcement of sectarian divisions. A system of designation presumes that everyone fits neatly into a category, but it ignores pluralism and means that the votes of people representing cross-community parties do not have the same value as those of Unionists and nationalists. That basic lack of equality is contrary to the spirit of the original agreement, and to the spirit of European anti-discrimination standards. It is quite wrong that the votes of Assembly Members who refuse to subscribe to the sectarian labels of Unionist or nationalist count for less than those of Members who accept those titles. I am therefore concerned lest we enshrine previous bad practice in the Bill by accepting amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
	Amendment No. 16 appears to have been tabled to avoid the problem of voting separately for a First Minister and a Deputy First Ministeran arrangement that means, for example, that some parties would actively have to vote for a Sinn Fein candidate. I do not know whether that was the explicit intention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but I do not have any difficulty with her proposal. To be honest, I would prefer Ministers to be endorsed collectively, rather than individually, because that reinforces the belief that they should work together.
	Amendment No. 17 deals with the age-old problem of deciding how individuals should be elected to office. We have still not got to grips with that problem, which is not just about redesignation. The Secretary of State may wish to explain why 70 per cent. of all Assembly Members can vote for a candidate, yet for that candidate not to be elected.
	The hon. Member for North Down sensibly pointed out the difference between a forum and an assembly, thus highlighting the inevitable confusion caused by using the same word for both. The Government have some form on this issue. The Secretary of State is also the Secretary of State for Wales, so he will remember a recent debate on the Government of Wales Bill. I tabled an amendment proposing that we call the Welsh Assembly the Welsh Senedd, but the Government rejected it, because they argued that the building in which the Assembly operates is a Senedd, so it would be confusing to call the Assembly the same thing. They appear to have taken exactly the opposite view in the Northern Ireland Bill, and have decided to use one word for two things that are clearly not the same.

Peter Hain: That was not the reason that we refused the hon. Gentleman's amendment. The translation of the Welsh word, Senedd, is Parliament, but Westminster is the Parliament. There is no Parliament in Walesthere is the Assembly.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman was not present for the entire debate, but one of the arguments against calling the Assembly the Senedd was that people would be confused. That is on the record for everyone to see. There is no question but that the use of the word Assembly in the Bill will cause confusion, as that has already happened in the press. The Government should take a long, hard look at the problem. It may be their political intention to make the   body look, feel and sound like an assembly to persuade individuals that the transition is not a great one. I am agnostic about that, but I feel very strongly that the Secretary of State should explain why the Government are willing to countenance confusion between the new creature and the original body that was set up and called the Assembly.
	I support amendment No. 26. This morning, the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform published its 18th report, which considered the Bill. It drew attention to paragraph 4 of schedule 1 and the power that it gives the Secretary of State to determine the conduct of the Assembly's proceedings:
	These directions may contain provisions of a substantive and not just a procedural nature. For example, they may include requirements as to the majority required for election. Although the bill does not prescribe what, if any, directions must be given in this respect, paragraph 4(3) and (4) of schedule 1 specifies that a particular use of the power may be to require provision corresponding to sections 16 and 18 of the Northern Ireland act 1998, which set out the majorities required in elections, and the formula for filling ministerial offices, under that Act.
	It concludes:
	We draw to the attention of the House the significance of the power to give directions so that Ministers may, if the House thinks fit, be asked for a fuller explanation of the intended use.
	We would like the Secretary of State to comment on what the power will be used for. We are concerned that he has taken the power upon himself, and will not allow the Assembly to decide these matters for itselfa point that we made, albeit less emphatically, in amendment No. 4. Why can the Assembly not decide those matters for itself? The matter has invited comment from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, so I hope that the Secretary of State can provide a cohesive reply.
	I found amendment No. 7 entertaining, as it dealswith parliamentary privilege and makes the preposterous assumption that one can prove an exemption for malice. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain why on earth the Bill includes such a fatuous provision.

Mark Durkan: I think that the hon. Gentleman means amendment No. 27, not amendment. No. 7.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful for the correction.
	I do not believe that the provision would have any efficacy in a court of law. It is a moot point, but the Bill does not stand or fall on it. I am not persuaded, however, that there is a coherent reason for the inclusion of a provision that rather offensively suggests that, although it is not the case for any other political body in the United Kingdom, there is a particular opportunity and likelihood of malice in Northern Ireland. In my experience, Northern Irish politicians are some of the most generous-hearted and loving people one could hope to meet, so planning for such a failure is an offence to right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
	Finally, I rather like amendment No. 6, which gives the Assembly the ability to discuss, and have an input into, Orders in Council that are made in Parliament between 15 May, when the Assembly is recalled, and any such time that a restoration order is made to restore devolved powers to the Assembly.
	I think that that is the right thing to do. Assembly Members should be able to have proper input into matters affecting people in Northern Ireland, for which the Assembly will ultimately be responsible and with whichsignificantlyAssembly Members will be elected to deal.
	The amendment would solve an ongoing problem that the Government accept is real. The problem is that the Orders in Council process is simply an unacceptable way to govern the Province. The amendment would also give the Assembly authority to have real decision-making input on matters that are part of its governing role, but we must be careful to stipulate that its provisions should not apply for ever. Despite Government assurances, if that happens there is a risk that deadlines will slip and that we will end up with a new and semi-operational Assembly that runs in the slightly ad hoc way that has been described.
	I shall be somewhat concerned if the Minister chooses to reject the amendment, as the cross-party support for it is evident. The SDLP, the DUP and the Liberal Democrats support it, and I imagine that the Conservatives will be sympathetic to it

Patrick Cormack: Of course.

Lembit �pik: I am now certain that the Conservatives support the amendment. Unfortunately, Sinn Fein Members have not been able to make it here today, but I am sure that they would do so too. The Government are always looking for consensus, and they have it with this amendment. They should respond by accepting it, or at least by tabling an amendment in their own words on Report that would achieve the same thing.
	Will the Secretary of State say what damage could possibly be done by explicitly including the Assemblyor the forum, if that is the preferred name for the bodyin the decision-making process in respect of Orders in Council? That would relieve some of the pressure that all of us feel when it comes to the inability to amend legislation, and it would also give the Assembly the sort of real responsibilities that we all agree would be helpful.

Peter Hain: I shall give a more detailed response when I reply to the debate, but I want to point out that there was no cross-party support for the proposal at all. If there had been, I do not think that all the parties would be ready to turn up on 15 May to take part in what I think will be a positive spirit.

Lembit �pik: I suspect that the Secretary of State will find that there has been a degree of movement on this matter. From the interventions made during the debate so far, I get the sense that there is cross-party support for the amendment, or for something like it. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say, but I hope that if the proposal does enjoy cross-party support

Peter Hain: There is no cross-party support for it.

Lembit �pik: From a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no cross-party support for the proposal, but I was going to make a different point. If it turns out that there is cross-party support for it, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the amendment seriously.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State intervened to say that the proposal did not have cross-party support. However, the DUP and the UUP seem to support it, and my party clearly supports it, as it is our amendment. The absence of cross-party support seems to be down to Sinn Fein, yet the right hon. Gentleman has said that the outcome of the review of public administration must be that we get seven super-councils. That outcome does not have cross-community support, but is supported only by Sinn Fein. That is a paradox that the Secretary of State cannot explain.

Lembit �pik: What the hon. Gentleman says reminds me that cross-party support was not a big consideration in the introduction of water charges or of student loans and tuition fees: both were opposed unanimously, even by Sinn Fein.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to build consensus, which is what the whole process is about. As someone elected to an English constituency, perhaps I am able to raise this question: does he agree that the Bill should be about giving more trust to the elected Members of the Assembly? Might not it be possible for the Secretary of State to consider allowing some of the Bill's more pernicious provisionssuch as those to do with Standing Orders and how the leader of the Assembly is electedto be amended by them?

Lembit �pik: That is a fair point. I would go so far as to say that Members of the reconstituted Assembly might be justified in feeling slightly patronised. They are being expected to work towards achieving an operational Assembly, but they are not going to be able to get actively involved in the decision-making loop for legislation that will be going through when the Assembly is operating.
	The Government would not lose anything by accepting the amendment. The hon. Member for Foyle has underlined the fact that there has been some movement. A common-sense position has been achieved, with which all the parties from Northern Ireland represented in this Chamber seem to agree.
	I hope that the Secretary of State does not say that Sinn Fein has a veto on the proposal, as that would be very unhelpful. I am sure that he would accept that the fact that the SDLP, the UUP and the DUP all agree that the proposal is a good ideasubject to some consultation with the Alliance, Sinn Fein and othersis a good reason to consider accepting it. Anything else would suggest that the Assembly was being set up to do what he wants, and that it will not be allowed to do what it and the people of Northern Ireland wantthat is, to make important decisions and have an input into the feedback loop.
	The Minister of State has placed great store in having a constructive dialogue about how we can do things better than we do under the Order-in-Council process. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say, after he has reflected on the fact that we seem to have moved from a position where there was no support for the amendment to one where the key players in the debate and in Northern Ireland politics all agree that it would be sensible.

Ian Paisley: It is hard for the people of Northern Ireland to understand exactly what the Government are about. The Government's statements should contain greater clarity about their real intentions.
	I regret that this debate began with the leader of the SDLP trying to put blame on certain parties. He suggested that the DUP was going into the Assembly with the aim of ensuring that it is broken up and brought to an end on 26 November. That is not my brand of politics. Down the years, I have attended all the talks to which I have been invited. I was not invited to some of them and my party was treated as a leper, but we always attendedand made our case as strongly as we couldwhen we were invited.
	I have no intention of taking my party to the Assembly in order to get the Assembly shut down on 26 November, but the leader of the SDLP missed the point completely. Yesterday, it was accepted on both sides of the House that all parties involved in the talks must agree on the question of democracy. We cannot have people at those talks who want to be members of the Government of Northern Ireland yet stick to their terrorism or to their criminal practices.
	That was set out firmly yesterday and it was endorsed by the Secretary of State, who agreed that that must be the keystone to the Assembly. However, if that keystone is not put in place, we cannot enter into discussions with people who have made it known that they are not prepared to be there on the same conditions as everyone else. I resent the suggestion by the leader of the SDLP that the DUP will join the Assembly to get it closed down.
	The people who will close down the Assembly will be the ones who do not accept the rules, which are straight and plaineveryone should accept that the Assembly will be a democracy and that Northern Ireland will be ruled like any other part of the UK. Terrorists, those who advocate terrorism and those who are engaged in criminality will not be able to take office. If they are elected by their people, that is all well and good, but they will not be able to hold office until they keep to the rules. If we do not make that clear, we might as well all pack up today. That point must be spelled out over and over again, although one would have thought that it would be taken as read in this United Kingdom.
	I resent the suggestion by the SDLP leader that we would be happy to close down the Assembly. This is not about satisfying a particular party; this is about seeking to obtain satisfaction for everyone who is dedicated to democracy. As I have said, I want to see everyone in Northern Ireland enjoying the same privileges, rights, freedoms and enjoyment of democracy as me. That is what we must aim for.
	Many aspects of the Assembly are strange. The Standing Orders of the Assembly when it was brought into being were very similar to these orders. In fact, I accuse the Secretary of State of copying those orders, which the UUP and others accepted, so he has reproduced what was foisted on us. A new creature may be being formed, but its orders are almost identical to the previous ones. I have not had time to examine the orders because I am awaiting a report from the fellow who is supposed to work for me, but it will be interesting to see the comparison. I note that the Secretary of State is not holding up his hand in the confessional box and confessing that the orders are new.

Peter Hain: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman allows confessions in his church, but I happily confess that he is right that the orders are similar to the previous ones.

Ian Paisley: I believe in confession but I do not believe in absolution, so I cannot absolve the right hon. Gentleman, which would probably take a very long time, but that is a matter for another debate on another day.
	We must face up to the fact that the sooner the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives meet with the common purpose of building on a democratic foundation, the sooner we will make progress. If that were to happen, we could make rapid progress.
	In the Tea Room today, someone said to me, You seemed to be in good form yesterday. I replied, I certainly was, because I believe that yesterday we were striking a note that needed to be struck. I am going into the Assembly with my party to seek with all my strength to get it built on a firm democratic foundation. If we do that, there will be success.

Patrick Cormack: I am sure that all hon. Members echo the words of the right hon. Gentleman. We all hope that there will be a secure democratic foundation and that the proper Assembly can come into being again and exercise its proper functions.
	I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is going to reply to this debate, because he must face up to a number of important facts. He knows that I would not question his good intentions or his personal integrity because I have considerable admiration for the Secretary of State and we have enjoyed a cordial relationship in various capacities in this House. However, he must recognise that he is taking to himself the most enormous powers in this Bill. Whether he aspires to the feathered hat of the pro-consul, or whether he aspires to the uniform of the commissar, he is taking powers that any pro-consul or commissar would be extremely pleased to have.
	For a start, the Secretary of State is appointing every member of the body. I support the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that it would be clearer and therefore more honest to call the body something other than the Assemblythe forum would be fine. Although it will consist of the members who were elected to the Assembly, it is not the Assemblyit is the Secretary of State's creature, and he is giving himself powers to direct how it shall perform, who shall preside over it and what it shall do. He is also reserving powers to say that if he does not like what happens, he can tell the Assembly to do other things.
	Three democratic parties from Northern Ireland are represented in this House and their credentials are beyond question. I accept that the DUP, the SDLP and the UUP genuinely want the Assembly to succeed, so it is important to take account of what they say. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has said, the amendments contain a remarkable degree of agreement between the three parties.
	There is a perception that the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole pay more attention to the party that is not here than to the parties that are. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening because the point is very importantwhen the Whip has stopped talking to him, he can listen. There is a perception that the party that is not here is more highly regarded and taken greater account of than the parties that are. I am not saying that that is the case; I am saying that that is the perception.
	The Secretary of State must make it abundantly clear in what he says today and in the extremely sensitive talks that will take place in the coming weeks that those who play by the rulesthe DUP, the SDLP and the UUPhave a special position which the others can have, if they want it. All the others have to do is what we said yesterday during what was, as the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, an extremely constructive Second Reading debate.
	There was very little disagreement yesterday. There was a unity of desire to see a proper Assembly functioning properly with all its elected Members and a recognition that, in order for that to happen, Sinn Fein has to play by the rules and show that it is so doing. We all welcomed the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission. Everyone, including the right hon. Member for North Antrim and his deputy, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), recognised that there has been real progress, but underlined the continuing, disturbing involvement in criminality among some of those in Sinn Fein that puts in question its aspirations towards democratic credentials.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will address those points full on when he deals with the substance of the amendments. As he does so, will he explain why he cannot heed the unity of view between the three Northern Ireland parties represented here on the subject of Orders in Council? The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made that point effectively, persuasively and, if I may say so, persistently, and he was right to do so.
	The months between May and November will be vital if we are to reach agreement and move forward. I hope for a long period when there will be no disruption of the Assembly, Assembly will follow Assembly, and people in Northern Ireland with political aspirations, whether Unionist or nationalist, will stand for it, be elected to it and work within it. Having called this creature into being, I ask the Secretary of State to trust it and not to do things in this House that take away from it some of the difficult and crucial decisions with which it, and it alone, should grapple.
	The Assembly must have red meatreal issues to deal withand be able to show the people of Northern Ireland that they can trust it. We are all disturbed about the percentage of people who vote in elections. If they are to vote for the Assembly in large numbers, it must have real power to deal with big issues such as the structure of local government in Northern Ireland. That was mentioned by many Members yesterday and again today by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made some extremely good points. The current structure of local government in Northern Ireland is not welcomed by anybody. Twenty-six local authorities are far too many at a time when there is a proliferation of other bodies. However, in lighting upon the figure of seven, which is supported only by the party that is not represented here, the Government are creating unpopularity and difficulty for themselves.
	I beg the Secretary of State to go gently on this until November, so that the Assembly can determine whether the number should be seven, nine or whatever. We are fully agreed that it should be substantially fewer than 26, but let it be a figure that commands support across the board in Northern Ireland, so that the right hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Members for Foyle and for North Down and others can all say, Yes, we recognise this, we want to work with it, and we want it to be the framework for our local government for coming generations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and powerful speech. He has put his finger on the key pointthat it is a question of trust. The Secretary of State is asking the parties represented here to trust the peace process. Should not he in turn trust Assembly Members to shape their own future?

Patrick Cormack: Of course. Trust must be reciprocal and indivisible. The Secretary of State is saying to the House, Trust meand, on a personal level, I do. I therefore say to him, Trust the people of Northern Ireland, as represented by active and vigorous Members of Parliament who have all proclaimed their dedication to a proper Assembly. I ask him not to make irreversible changes to the structure of Northern Ireland and the fabric of its society before the Assembly has come into being. If the Assembly does not come into being, that is a different story, but let us have at least until November before irrevocable decisions are set in stone in Northern Ireland.
	A proud people in a beautiful part of the United Kingdom care passionatelyeven though they do not always agreeabout the education system and the shape and framework of local government. Although many things about Northern Ireland are not normal and there are many things that some of us do not like, we cannot question the deep intensity of local patriotism, which is admirable and must be harnessed to a productive future. I know that the Secretary of State has a regard for the people of Northern Ireland. I ask him to show it by treading softly when he insists on what the House passes in the coming months.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will touch on the small but important point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made about parliamentary privilege, which is again part and parcel of trust. We know how difficult it is to prove malice. How can I prove the innermost thoughts of the right hon. Member for North Antrim or of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who may think that I am going on inordinately at the moment?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: No, of course not.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted. However, how do I know what anybody else thinks? How do I know what motivates people? I have to trust people. Just as I would trust the Secretary of State, I ask him not to shackle the privilege of those who meet in forum or conclave and what they can say to and about each other.
	I said yesterday that the task in Northern Irelandit is a joint taskis to make hatred history. We have spoken much about making poverty history recently, and that is good. To make hatred history, we have to work together. That requires a great deal of sacrifice, especially by those who have suffered. The communities represented by Northern Ireland Members on the other side of the House have suffered; those represented by Northern Ireland Members on my left have suffered enormously. Those who are not here but could be present to argue their cause have inflicted much of that suffering. They have not expressed remorse for doing so. We are going to have to draw a line without that expression of remorse, and that is quite a task.
	I, too, have lost close friends and colleagues as a result of the troubles, as we all have on this side of the House. Those men were popular across the House. If we are to begin to create the climate for a new era of trust, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to be cautious about what he pushes through Westminster in the next six months. He should devote his time almost exclusively to Northern Ireland. I am sure that the people of Wales will not mind. He knows that I do not like the dual mandate that he holds, although that is not his fault.
	Let us use the Bill as a launching pad for the true democracy that the people of Northern Ireland richly deserve.

Peter Robinson: I want to comment on one or two amendments in the group. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) about amendment No. 6. In the Democratic Unionist party document, Facing Reality, which preceded the Government's initiative, we stated clearly that we wanted an Assembly that would exercise the maximum power and responsibility that was consistent with the circumstances. We never advocated a talking shop. Indeed, we put forward in the document a number of options to be considered by the political parties in Northern Ireland, one of which was legislative devolution. That option would still have allowed the executive functions to be performed by the direct-rule Ministers, while allowing legislative rule by the Assembly. The proposal by the SDLP is a small gesture in that direction, but it is none the less a helpful suggestion, and my party colleagues and I are quite happy to support it. Indeed, the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government will start to lose credibility if they turn down a reasonable proposal that is supported by all those who are prepared to speak in this House on behalf of the electorate in Northern Ireland.
	What is the Government's purpose? I had assumed that it was to establish cross-community support in Northern Ireland and to encourage the political parties to reach agreements. Here we have an agreement, however small it might be, yet the Secretary of State has not, as yet, indicated his willingness to accept this small step forward. He must relinquish some of his control and power, because the tendency, as illustrated by the Bill, is that he is seeking to draw more and more power to himself. That is not a good example for the politicians of Northern Ireland to be set by a Government who say that they want to devolve and cast off their powers. Here we have an all-party agreement among all the members from Northern Ireland in this House, yet the Secretary of State still appears to want to resist it. I hope that he will reconsider his position on these matters. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has suggested, the Secretary of State could review the situation when we reach 24 November. It need not be set in stone for all time.
	The purpose of this Assembly is that it will be a transitional Assembly that will move towards full executive devolution. This measure seems to be a very adequate way of performing that task.

Sammy Wilson: Given the filters in amendment No. 6including the requirement for cross-community support, and the provision that the Secretary of State would still have powers to make urgent orders without reference to the Assemblydoes my hon. Friend agree that this is in fact a very modest proposal? Surely the Secretary of State should have no difficulty in accepting it.

Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. I hope that, as the Secretary of State has been considering these matters, he will have been swayed by the arguments that have been presented from both sides of the House on this matter.
	A number of issues were raised during this short debate that bring two words to mind: mountains and molehills. We are at times inclined to get into the minutiae to such an extent that we lose track of the key issues.
	Let me deal with the issue of the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is not a new issue; we faced it in 1998. We are talking about a transitional Assembly that will move from its present structures and powers towards a creation that we hope will eventually have full executive authority. The Ulster Unionist party did not oppose such a metamorphosis in 1998, and I am surprised that it is opposing it today. The words used to describe the bodybe it assembly or forumare pretty meaningless in reality. It is the Assembly. It is not the Northern Ireland Assembly as set up under the 1998 legislation. It has a specific role that would take it seamlessly from its existence under this Bill to an existence that we hope it will have under an amended version of the 1998 Act, given that that legislation will have to be amended.
	Indeed, the seamless transition is detailed in the Bill, in that certain powers automatically given to this Assembly will be given, without any further action, to the new Assembly that follows itfor instance, in relation to the Presiding Officer's position, the enrolment process for Assembly Members and their designation, and decisions taken in relation to the First and Deputy First Minister and other Executive positions. By being taken by this body, those powers will automatically get taken by the new Northern Ireland Assembly under, I hope, an amended 1998 Act. We are talking about a transitional Assembly, and I suppose that putting the word transitional in the title might have made its intention and purpose clearer.
	I do not think that the terms used in the Bill do great violence to the overall position and future of Northern Ireland. Certainly, I am not greatly exercised about what the body is called. We all know what it is intended to do, and what its purpose is to be. I simply hope that the public will be more concerned with what the Assembly does than with what it is called. If the Members of that Assembly do a job that gets the favour of the community in Northern Ireland, they will worry little whether it might be confused with some other body that has been in suspension for a long period.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman outline for the benefit of us all exactly what he anticipates this new Assembly doing that will charm and impress the people of Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson: Members of the Democratic Unionist party are certainly committed to using every platform that that Assembly will provide to speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and to test the Secretary of State in terms of agreements that we can reach with others on key matters relating to education, the review of public administration, rating and the economy in general. We will speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland want us to have that voice. More than that, they want the Government to heed that voice. For that reason, the Secretary of State could go a long way to add to the importance and vitality of that Assembly were he willing to accept the amendment tabled by the SDLP.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if he is at all worried about getting permission from the decision makers, he could phone Sinn Fein and get its permission, because it would probably also like to have those powers? Whatever other differences there are, I have little doubt that Sinn Fein could see the benefits of having those powers bestowed on this interim Assembly.

Peter Robinson: I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to speak on behalf of Sinn Fein. I will certainly not attempt to do so. I simply know that the people of Northern Ireland want to have real decisions taken within that Assembly. They want it to have as much power as is possible. If it is not possible immediately to have an Executive set up, the Members of that Assembly should press the Secretary of State to divest himself of some of the powers that this legislation gives him, and to devolve some of those powers in whatever way is possible, whether through a corporate Assembly, legislative devolution or administration devolution, to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
	On privilege, again, I have difficulty with the position of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). First, the terms are almost identical to those in 1998. Far from opposing the position in 1998, her party supported it. Therefore, what the Government are doing in relation to the privilege of the Assembly has consistency. Having discovered that, I think that she decided to see whether she could find some more secure ground, and became a defender of the media and the pressnot always a popular position among politicians, but then she cannot be accused of always taking popular positions. I do not think, however, that the press have anything to fear. The Secretary of State may tell the hon. Lady and me whether this is indeed the case, but according to my reading of the legislation the statement, not the Member, is covered by privilege. If the statement is reported, it is covered by privilege, and the media are therefore entitled to publish it. The media will be covered in exactly the same way as the Member, because it is the statement that enjoys the privilege.
	As the hon. Lady said, the privilege is not the full privilege enjoyed by the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly created under the 1998 Act, but I do not believe that the distinction will have any real implications for Assembly Members or for the press. I agree with those who have said that it will be very difficult for anyone to prove malice in the courts. Indeed, I am not entirely sure whether it is right, if a Member usesor abusesprivilege and attempts, with malice, to damage and defame individuals, for even this House to confer such a degree of privilege.
	I have used the privilege of this House on many occasions. I have named individuals, and made clear what information I have had about the activities of those individuals. However, I have never done that with malice. I have done it because I have believed it to be in the public interest, and have believed my facts to be accurate. If any Member stands up in the Northern Ireland Assembly and, with malice, determines to out or defame someone, I am not sure that that Member should enjoy the privilege of the Assemblybut I repeat yet again that it will not be the full-blown Assembly in which, normally, robust exchanges would take place that might require the exercise of that privilege.
	As a party that is always very careful about what it says and would not seek to stretch the bounds of privilege, my party has nothing to fear. I hope that the hon. Lady's remarks are not a harbinger of something from which some of her Assembly colleagues may need protection.

Lady Hermon: I cannot possibly speak for my Assembly colleagues. I could not tie their hands or gag them, for that matter. I have never been able to do so in the past, and I shall not be able to do so in the future.
	Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a distinction to be drawn? According to paragraph 6 of schedule 1, only a
	written or oral statement made by a member
	will be covered by limited privilege in this new creature, the Assembly. The key word that is missing is publication: no privilege will attach to publication of a statement made by a Member of the Assembly.

Peter Robinson: The statement is covered by privilege, whether it is heard directly, heard through transmission or read in newspapers. If that is not the case, the Secretary of State ought to tell us, or at least tell the media, but according to my everyday understanding of the language, the statement is covered irrespective of whether it is repeated by a Member or by the press, and therefore no action can be taken against either.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman ought to give some credence to what has been said by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Section 50(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is very clear about the position that obtained before that date. It states:
	For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to
	(a) the making of a statement in proceedings of the Assembly; and
	(b) the publication of a statement under the Assembly's authority.
	I am not sure whether schedule 1 would cover publication, and I think that we need clarification from the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will doubtless agree that lawyers who do not want statements to be covered by privilege will try to argue that they are made maliciously. As drafted, this provision could lead to considerable arguments and put the leader of the Assembly in a difficult position.

Peter Robinson: I suspect that the person who made the statement would be in a difficult position, rather than the Assembly's Presiding Officer. I assume that the section that the hon. Gentleman quoted from is from the 1998 Act.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: indicated assent.

Peter Robinson: Therefore, under it, both the publication and the person to whom the remarks are attributed are covered by full privilege; however, the Bill establishes that they will not be so covered. Privilege will be qualified, in that such a statement must have been made without malice; alternatively, it must be impossible to prove that it has been made with malice.
	There are two further issues on which I want to comment, the first of which is the powers of the Secretary of State. I said to the hon. Member for North Down in the House yesterday that I concurred with many of her misgivings about the storing up of more and more powerindeed, unfettered powerin the Secretary of State. Effectively, in many instances he can do what he thinks fit, which is clearly a cause for concern. However, the difficulty is that although the hon. Lady has taken away such responsibilities from the Secretary of State through her amendment, she has given them to no one else.
	That takes us back to the question of why the Secretary of State is setting up the Assembly, rather than the Northern Ireland Assembly. Had he detailed all such responsibilities and designated them to various individuals, or groups of individuals, in effect he would have been amending the entire 1998 Act. I would not have worried greatly about amending the 1998 Act, but I suspect that there are some people sitting behind the Minister who would not be too keen on doing so.
	Of course, the reality is that the jobs that the Secretary of State has been given the power to perform under the Bill have to be performed. If we are to remove his responsibility for performing them, we must also amend the Bill to give that responsibility to the Assembly or someone else. That is the deficiency in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, but I concur with her view that the Secretary of State is taking far too much on to himself. It would show greater faith in the elected representatives of Northern Ireland if he vested some of that responsibility in the Assembly itself.
	I turn finally to the election of the Presiding Officer. The wording in paragraph 2(6) of schedule 2 is clumsy and unusual, even if it is not such that I would oppose it outright. I do not like the idea of somebody appointed by a Secretary of State being
	deemed to have been elected.
	The Secretary of State is not the Northern Ireland electoratehe does not have the power to elect anybody in Northern Ireland. He can appoint, and I would have been quite content for him to make the appointment, and for it to stand until the Northern Ireland Assembly itself elected someone. Paragraph 2(6) of schedule 2 states:
	The person who is presiding officer of the Assembly immediately before the effective date
	the Secretary of State's appointee
	shall be deemed to have been elected as Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly under section 39(1) of the 1998 Act.
	I hope that that will not be an issue. I would far rather that the Assembly met and elected its own Presiding Officer or Speaker. That would be an indication of the maturity of the Assembly and its ability to reach agreement. Indeed, if it could not reach agreement on such issues, one must question whether it would reach agreement on some of the greater issues that it will face. I hope that it does not become an issue, but I do not like the idea that the Secretary of State can be deemed to have elected a Presiding Officer for the Assembly. In reality, the person concerned will be the Secretary of State's appointee and, with due respect to the Secretary of State, will have less authority as an appointee than if elected by the Assembly as its Speaker.
	I hope that the Assembly will elect a Speaker, but I am concerned by the terminology in the legislation. It suggests that the Secretary of State can allow the Assembly to elect its Speaker, but it does not have the power to do so until such time as it reverts to Northern Ireland Assembly mode. Under the present mode, it will not have the power through this legislation or under the draft standing orderssome of us at least have seen themto elect a Speaker.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend's point is given added weight when one considers that not only was the Presiding Officer appointed by the Secretary of State alone, but no one in any of the political parties was even consulted on the appointment. That is a cause of great concern.

Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend is right. He will remember that, when we met with the Secretary of State before the appointment was made, we asked whether he would consult the political parties before he decided. He made it clear that there would not be any consultation and that was borne out by the fact that the person who appears to have been most surprised by the appointment of Eileen Bell as the Presiding Officer was the leader of her party. It was not the first time that he had been surprised to discover that an appointment had been made. None of that should detract from the credibility of the individual involved. I wish Eileen Bell well, and my colleagues and I have no intention of making life difficult for herI am sure that she will be pleased to hear that. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already personally wished her well. I trust that she will have deputies who will give her the necessary support. The position would, however, have greater authority if it were elected by the Assembly.
	I would like the Secretary of State to make it clear that although the legislation says that he may authorise the Assembly to elect a Presiding Officer, he will do so and allow the position greater authority. Otherwise we will be in the ludicrous position of the Assembly Members barely being able to breathe without the permission of the Secretary of State, which would make it something less than a talking shop. He must let go of the leash and allow the Assembly to take on more and more responsibility. That is the least that he can do.

William McCrea: This has been an interesting debate and I have listened intently to those hon. Members who have spoken. Many questions have been posed and we await the answers from the Secretary of State, although some limited light has been shed on the subject by his interventions this afternoon. That is deeply appreciated.
	The Government must reveal their true intention. In reality, no one is under any illusion about that true intention. We all know that it is the Government's design and intention to get the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein-IRA into government, but only the last of those parties has a dual title, so we have to ensure that the democratic credentials of all those participating in government are clear.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made it abundantly clear that neither the Government nor anyone else will be able to cajole, pressurise or even humour our party into anything that is not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and that is not built on the solid foundation of true democracy. There is a great challenge to those who were inextricably linked to terrorism in the past. They must completely renounce violence; for them, the path of terror must be consigned to the history books. There must be recognition of the primacy and authority of the security forces. They must support the efforts of the police to ensure law and order and the safety of everyone in the communityeveryone equal under the law and equally subject to the law.
	Her Majesty's security forces must and will be supported in exercising their legitimate authority to move against and defeat terrorism. We must make that abundantly clear. People who want us to believe that they have moved away from their terrorist path must support the security forces, the police and the Army, in their efforts to defeat and bring to book those who are still active in terrorism, who may be in the Real IRAalthough we are told it has moved away from terrorismor the Continuity IRA. There is no hiding place. If people want to be part of the Government, they have to say that they will support the security forces in their efforts to track down and defeat Continuity IRA. They have to come up to the mark. Members should make no mistake: we will not be cajoled, pressurised or humoured into accepting a second-rate Administration.
	The people of Northern Ireland have the right to a true democratic solution, based on firm democratic principles, and that is what we want for them. We must be assured that all the criminality and corruption of the past has been rejected, and that there is repentance and genuine remorse for the slaughter of the innocent, so that we can move forward on democratic grounds. That is what is expected in a democracy. Nothing less would be accepted for membership of Government in this place, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, so nothing less than those credentials will be acceptable to us.
	As I said yesterday, we are a devolutionist party. We want a return to strong devolution in Northern Ireland with a devolved Government who can deal with the issues that affect the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
	I have listened carefully to SDLP Members and looked carefully at their amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) rightly acknowledged our general support for amendment No. 6, but in respect of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, I have to say, with the greatest respect to the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), that he must leave the dark ages and move on from the Belfast agreement. We are in a new century from the agreement. He must leave the old century, enter the new one and come into the real world. It is amazing that despite his knowledge of the failures of the Belfast agreement, he does not want a jot or tittle removed from it; we must abide by it, warts and all. That is a totally untenable position. No one with any common sense could accept it.
	Let me give an example of what the hon. Member for Foyle is asking us to ensure that we continue with and that the Secretary of State would activate under the Belfast agreement. Ministers can act like little dictators, irrespective of the will of the Assembly. That is totally unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that if we did not come up to the mark by 25 November, if we had not settled and if we had had no impact on the issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland, those parties would stand condemned by the electorate.
	Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman that, for the majority of people in Northern Irelandnot the majority of the Unionist community, but the majority of Unionist and nationalist peoplethe majority argument on education started in the Assembly. Ministers are activating that which was decided by an unaccountable Minister in the Assembly who acted like a dictator, rather than like someone in a democracy. That is not acceptable.
	The will of the Assembly must be paramount; it must be that which is accepted. Members are telling the Secretary of State that taking account must mean more than taking account and that he must act accordingly. If we are to re-establish everything in the Belfast agreement, will the hon. Member for Foyle set his mind back to what happened? Ministers did not act according to the will of the Assembly. They heard what the Assembly said, for example, on education, but they did what they wanted to do.
	Let us talk about health and the closure of hospitals. It is very good for Sinn Fein-IRA Members to come out on the streets and say, We must keep Omagh hospital and We must keep the Mid-Ulster hospital, but who took the decision to close those hospitals? Where did that start? The decision came from the Assembly. With the greatest respect, MinistersI have many arguments with themare simply carrying forward decisions that Barbara Brown took and they are putting them into action. How did she decide that? Did she decide it by the will of the Assembly? No. She acted contrary to the will of the Assembly. Why did she do that? She did it according to her political affiliation and therefore she felt at the time that she wanted to do it because she wanted to ensure that the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat would be secured in the Westminster elections. She and her party played with the lives of the people. They played with the health of the people. They knew that West Tyrone was safe for Sinn Fein and therefore they wanted to secure Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Therefore, they established the hospital in Fermanagh and they closed Omagh hospital.

Ian Paisley: May I remind the House of what happened with the Jubilee hospital and with the chairman of the maternity hospital, too? The chairman of the committee was an SDLP man and he said, No!, but the Sinn Fein member of the Executive took the decision and laughed at the SDLP and everyone else.

William McCrea: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. In fact, in the example of the Jubilee hospital, which is in south Belfast, it was politically expedient for the then Minister, Barbara BrownSinn Fein-IRAto make a proposal for west Belfast, for Gerry's seat. Therefore, they did not care about the health of the people or about the will of the people. In fact, on that occasion, a previous Member for Belfast, WestDr. Joe Hendronwas the chairman of the health committee. He and other Members of the SDLP disagreed with that decision simply on health grounds, and it was referred twice to the court. The Minister was ordered by the court to revisit her decision, but she still went on with it, irrespective of that. We have got to be very careful.
	The Belfast agreement, as it stands, was rejected by the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. We have got to accept that that is the will of the people and that should be taken into account. If the hon. Member for Foyle is asking the Secretary of State to take account of the will of the people in activating decisions, he ought to take account of it, as well.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the decision in relation to maternity services in Belfast. He has misrepresented the facts of that situation. Everybody agreed that a decision had to be taken on one side or the otherthe position could not be sustained on two sides. There was going to be no cross-community support available for a decision on one side or the other. The SDLP supported the Minister in taking the decision that she took. Joe Hendron, as the SDLP person who was the chair of the health committee, did not disagree with the Minister on health grounds. His interest was as the chair of the committee, respecting the committee's interest and locus. The other SDLP member of that committee was the representative of South Belfast who disagreed on constituency grounds. So, the hon. Gentleman misrepresents the situation.

William McCrea: The SDLP is saying that its member disagreed on constituency groundsso, it is willing to play with the issue, as well. We should be dealing with the issue on health grounds, and health grounds alone, instead of trying to play around with people's lives and futures.

Iris Robinson: May I just bring some semblance of reality to the debate? The then Minister, Barbara Brown, had announced in An Phoblacht, a republican rag sheet, that she was going to locate the maternity services at the Royal Victoria hospital site, even before the committee took its decision to support the Belfast City hospital site. A majority of people voted for the Belfast City hospital site, but the Minister overruled that.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I understand that these matters are relevant to the debate, but I do not think that we ought to have lengthy re-runs of things that have happened in the past.

William McCrea: Thank you, Sir Michael.
	I have to make clear what the hon. Member for Foyle has suggested to the Secretary of State: amendment No. 7 really says, Listen, irrespective of the will of the people, let us go back to the Belfast agreement. The hon. Member for Foyle had better realise that the Belfast agreement is dead. We have moved on. The people of Northern Ireland, through their electorate, have moved on. That is why his party has three Members in this House, the Democratic Unionist party has nine and the Ulster Unionists have one. It is because the electorate have moved on. We cannot accept a situation in which no cognisance is given to the realities of what is going on and in which there is an attempt to pretend that we must have what has failed in the past. We have to look at the realities, rather than our wish list for the future.
	There was a lot of stir about the word Assembly. Should what we are discussing be called an assembly? Is it a forum, rather than an assembly? In many ways, that is a storm in a teacup. Those who are going to the Assembly are Assembly Members. With the greatest respect, it is not a forum. In 1996, I was elected to a forumthe Northern Ireland Forum. It was a forum and so I was called a Forum Member, not an Assembly Member. No one can call what we are discussing a forum, because I am not a Forum Member. I will be called there because I am an Assembly Member. That is why the invitation will be issued to me. Why is the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) not invited? Because she is not an Assembly Member. Others will be invited because they are Assembly Members.
	The body will not be the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the new Northern Ireland Assembly, but will be the Assembly of the Assembly Members of Northern Ireland. We should not take up time in the House by arguing that the body should be called not the Assembly, but the Forum, or something else, because no one can call it anything else. Assembly Members will be assembling together because they are Assembly Members.

Lady Hermon: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and disagree with most of what he is saying. He cannot have it both ways. He has said repeatedly that the Belfast agreement is dead, but now claims that time is being wasted discussing whether the new creature is an Assembly or not. Will he kindly accept that as the Northern Ireland Assembly is the creation of the Belfast agreement, the agreement cannot be dead? He is looking forward to getting back into the Assembly created by the Belfast agreement, which is definitely not dead.

William McCrea: We will not carry out a funeral procession today because the funeral for the Belfast agreement was held at the time of the last election. No one is suggesting that the body will be the new Northern Ireland Assembly, but it will be an Assembly of Members who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is a waste of the House's time to try to put another name on the Assembly because only Assembly Members will be invited to it, so I will not spend any more time on that point.
	The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the 1998 Act when she talked about bringing the First Minister and Deputy First Ministers together. I know the motives behind the Ulster Unionists' position on that, but, once again, we have to move on. If there is one thing that the hon. Lady should know, it is that the people of Northern Ireland made a decision about the Belfast agreement at the last election. With the greatest respect, no one can resuscitate or revive the agreement because the people, through the ballot box, have moved on.
	Just because a decision was taken years ago, are we going to live with the failures of the past? Do we not want a brighter and saner future for our people by moving away from putting criminals and terrorists into government and towards a situation in which the only credential for a person to hold ministerial office is democracy and democracy alone? That is why I ask the House to allow those who were elected as Assembly Members to meet and discuss. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will take account of not only Assembly Members' decisions, but the wise counsel given by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) when he asked the Secretary of State to hold back on the likes of the offensive decisions on the   review of public administration, at least until the November deadline has arrived. The House and the Secretary of State would do well to heed such wise counsel.

Laurence Robertson: I will be brief because we have had a long debate on the amendments, probably because they are wide ranging. I do not especially want to join in the debate on what the name for the new Assembly should be. There is a little confusion about what the Bill does and it has sometimes been difficult to explain that to people, who have responded by saying, Oh, so you're setting up a shadow Assembly, and I have replied that it is not quite like that. Although the situation is difficult, I do not want to take up the Committee's time on that issue.
	As other hon. Members said, it is important that the Assembly deals with real issues. That will be an incentive to make it work, so that the real Assemblyor the Northern Ireland Assembly, as I should call itcan be set up and full devolution can be realised. If it ends up as a talking shop, which I very much hope it will not, we will not have served the cause of devolution well.
	I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said. In particular, it is important that we put on hold as many statutory instruments as possible until the Assembly is up and running and fully able to consider those matters. We recently considered water rates and local government, and we are about to consider education. Those are big issues. I do not want to get to the point in November, or, I hope, before then, when devolution is fully triggered, to find that the Assembly is landed with a load of legislation of which it does not approve. That would not be a helpful start.
	I appeal to the Secretary of State to allow the Assembly to have something left to do. That is important. However, it is wrong for this House to decide such important matters for the 1.7 million people who live in Northern Ireland. I do my best from the Dispatch Box and in Committee, but I do not have, and do not pretend to have, the knowledge that hon. Members from Northern Ireland have. We all do our best, but we cannot have the same expertise as they have.
	On privilege in the Assembly, again, I am not a lawyer, but I would find it odd if the word malice remains as a qualification in paragraph 6 of schedule 1. I realise that malice is an important factor in the law on murder, for example, but we are talking about a very different matter when it comes to defamation. To prove that someone said something with malice would be very difficult. I do not think that it should remain in the paragraph.
	We would have preferred the Assembly to elect the Presiding Officer, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He or she would command greater authority, and it would also be fairer for the Assembly and the people who serve in that office.
	On the Secretary of State's powers to set the proceedings of the Assembly, it would have been useful for the Bill to include after consultation with the Presiding Officer. That might have been better, but probably only if the Presiding Officer had been elected by the Assembly, rather than appointed by the Secretary of State, to avoid an incestuous relationship.
	We have some concern about the fact that the Secretary of State is taking on extra powers. We seem to be considering so much legislation. Some of it is definitive, but then we come to a clause that says, The Secretary of State can do this, that and the other, and think, Why bother sitting through all the deliberations if he can do that? I am fearful of that, because it is wrong to vest so much power in any one person. I have no objection to this particular Secretary of State, but it would lead to more statutory instruments, which we all want to avoid. He should think about the powers that he is taking and whether they are going to lead to more statutory instruments. I think we would agree that that would not be a good thing. However, it is a temporary measure, and we do not intend to divide the Committee on it.
	We wish the Bill well and look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say in reply to a number of good points raised.

Peter Hain: I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for a helpful contribution, in which he legitimately probed a number of points.
	For the record, I inform the House that the draft standing orders were in the Vote Office from this morning, they were placed in the Library yesterday and they were circulated to all the parties, so I think I have discharged my obligations in that respect.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for her reference to the death of my father-in-law, Lieutenant Commander Douglas Haywood. The House will want to know that he served the Navy as a naval commander with great distinction in the second world war and afterwards.
	Clause 1 makes it clear that under the Bill the primary task before the Assembly will be to elect a First and Deputy First Minister, and to ensure that the remaining ministerial portfolios are filled upon restoration. It also permits the Secretary of State to refer other matters to the Assembly. Schedule 1 sets out the arrangements under which the Assembly will function in this phase.
	Let me make general points about the matters raised by the amendments, before I turn in detail to points raised with me by right hon. and hon. Members. There was a lengthy discussion yesterday about the Assembly's role in relation to current issues that may be referred to it, apart from its central task of selecting an Executive. There was a suggestion that we intended the Assembly merely to be a talking shop. A number of hon.   Members suggested, as has been suggested this afternoon, that in order to confirm that that was not the case, we should amend the Bill so as somehow to give the Assembly formal powers over legislation in the period before restoration.
	The Assembly is most definitely not intended to be a talking shop. I disagree flatly with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the matter. I do not want to debate with him or to make a remark that he may see as provocative, but some of the contributions this afternoon have not taken account of the background to the present position. I made it clear that I would have preferred a shadow Assemblya period in which we could have built up trust and working together, and then moved to restoration. That was expressly rejected by the SDLP and by Sinn Fein, who wished instead to move straight to restoration, or to try to do so.
	I remind the Committee that we have sought to bring the two positions together and get the Assembly going, seeking to achieve the successful election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in its early days, and the selection of the Executive as well. We have sought to do that, but not with any great expectation that it would succeed, and then to move forward with a deadline at the end of November.
	We hope that the Assembly is a body on the brink of assuming powers over a wide range of economic and social issues in Northern Ireland. That is the objective. The issues that have most often been suggested for referring to it are the ones that are not merely currently importanteducation and so onbut will raise important questions on the agenda of any devolved Administration and Assembly that assumes power in the near future. Any views that the Assembly expresses from 15 May onwards would need to be listened to very carefully by all concerned, and particular account would have to be takenI give this assuranceof any that were expressed with cross-community support.
	In the nicest way, I remind the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), who advanced his arguments with passion, that I was the one who helped to draft the statement made by both Prime Ministers in Armagh and inserted the specific references to education, water charges, local government and economic policy, and I am the Secretary of State who has arranged for the business community to come and make an early presentation to the Assembly on its case for economic reform. That is an opportunityto use a phrase mentioned earlierfor real meat to be discussed in the Assembly. In response to representations made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and a cross-party delegation that he brought, to which he referred yesterday on the subject of industrial de-rating, that is also a matter that I would refer to the Assembly.
	I cannot make the Assembly discuss anything. I can refer a matter to a business committee, which I hope will be established and operate by consensus, and that will refer the matter to the floor of the Assembly or to working groups, committees or whatever it decides. May I remind the House that as Secretary of State I pressed hardest for the restoration of devolution, as I want those decisions to be made by a fully restored Assembly?

Lembit �pik: I am encouraged by the Secretary of State's comments. Given his form on devolution in Wales, I do not doubt his intentions. However, he is asking us to trust his commitment to devolution. Surely, the principle of amendment No. 6 should sit comfortably with his own desire to involve the Assembly in decision making. Is he willing to make a commitment to introduce, perhaps on Report or in another place, a formal system that would ensure that the Assembly, which starts on 15 May, plays a role in the decision-making process in Orders in Council? I do not see why he should have a problem with enshrining that in legislation.

Peter Hain: I cannot agree to that, because we must not confuse lines of accountability. I am responsible for affairs in Northern Ireland, and I am accountable to the House. When the House considers those issues, it is obviously anxious to reflect on the Assembly's views but, ultimately, I am answerable, in the absence of a fully restored Assembly, to the House. We should not shackle ourselves.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: May I finish this point before accepting interventions, including one from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)?
	We all agree that devolution is a good thing, and those decisions are much better made in Belfast, but that cannot happen until there is necessary agreement between the parties on the structures on which devolution is to take place. Halfway houses are not possible. There is ministerial responsibility, either here or in Belfast; it is not possible to have both, or for them both to be statutorily defined, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) wishes. It is possible, however, to ensure that politics is at work in the Assembly and in the heed that my ministerial team and I take of its views; we must ensure that the politics works to move things forward.
	I shall give a concrete example of the dilemma that we face before giving way, as I promised. All the parties oppose water charges, and they would like Northern Ireland to be a unique position, in contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, so that such charges are not levied. That is a legitimate political case. If the Assembly were not fully restored, and I said that it could vote without responsibilities for its decisions, it would vote on water charges in an oppositionalist modeI hope that that is not an unfair characterisationif it decided that it did not want water charges. That decision would knock a great big hole in the budget from April next year, when it is proposed that the first tranche of water charges should be phased in. If the Assembly, acting irresponsibly, in the sense that it does not have responsibility for the consequences of its decisions, did not want water chargesI accept that no one likes to pay more moneythat would knock a great big hole in the budget for health, education, children's services and agriculture. Decisions that are made therefore have consequences. The Assembly is not yet fully restored, but when we reach a point where it has responsibility, because it has an Executive who can make recommendations, and the parties in the Executive vote accordingly because they know that their decisions have consequences, I am happy for decisions on water charges, the RPAthe review of public administrationeducation reform and so on to be made by the Assembly.

Patrick Cormack: May I try to pin down the Secretary of State on the RPA? Is he absolutely fixed on the seven new local authorities, or can that number be revised by the Assembly?

Peter Hain: The House of Commons voted yesterday to provide instructions to the boundary commission to work on boundaries for seven councils. Parliament has therefore made its decision. However, putting that into effect will still require a series of consequential legislative and regulatory measures, which I hope will go through the Assembly.
	The situation in respect of education reform is similar. Opposition to the reform proposals has been expressed, quite properly from their point of view, by DUP and UPP members, yet they have received strong support from the SDLP, Sinn Fein, the teaching profession, educationists and the business community. That shows that these matters are not as black and white as may sometimes be assumed.
	Does the hon. Member for South Staffordshire want to come back on that?

Patrick Cormack: As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his impeccable courtesy. Two issues seem to have become slightly mixed up. I agree that there is division over the education reforms, but my observations and conversations lead me to believe that a majority is in favour of amending the 11-plus while maintaining the status quo in respect of selective schools. The Assembly should be able to perpetuate that system, if that is its wish. However, given that the three Northern Ireland parties represented and participating in this House are of one mind about the proposal for seven local authorities, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will assure me that we are not absolutely fixed on that number, whatever Parliament has decided. After all, Parliament can always re-examine a matter and reach a different decision about it, and he can always table further Orders. If the Assembly perpetuates the apparent alliance that exists, he should respond to the questions about the seven authorities.

Peter Hain: Parliament has decided on the boundary commissioner's remit, and I have explained how the Assembly will be able to influence the subsequent pattern and delivery of local government. Further legislation is needed: I hope that the Assembly will undertake it and that we do not have to introduce it by Order in Council here.
	The RPA reform proposal has not been picked out of a paper bag, as it were, to satisfy one party. I might add that the party involvedSinn Fein, in this casecame to support the proposal very belatedly, and I assure the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that its support was not material to the decision, which was reached after wide consultation and independent assessment.
	I do not want to go too far into the matter, but it has been raised and deserves a proper response. The pattern of seven councils was chosen because the local government structure in Northern Ireland needs a strong revenue base that is more or less equal between authorities. There will be no need for cross-subsidy between them, but there will be coterminosity in respect of policing and health. Various other factors apply, and I repeat that the proposal for seven authorities was not made to satisfy one particular party.

Lady Hermon: The Secretary of State has been very generous about giving way. He made a passing reference a few minutes ago to the creation of a business committee. Would he care to elaborate on the construction of that committee? Will it be a revamped and resurrected version of the one that sat in the real Northern Ireland Assembly, or will it be a creation under his direction?

Peter Hain: Over the past week or so, I have discussed the idea of the business committee with all the parties involved, and it has received unanimous support. The committee will be made up of representatives of the major parties, in the proportions that the hon. Lady would expect, and I expect it to operate by consensus. Its first meeting is due to be held early next week and, as part of the preparatory process, the Presiding Officer is to meet the party Whips tomorrow. I want to allow the parties in the Assembly to take charge of running it, but I do not want it to implode right away, because there is the possibility that factionalisation will occur immediately if the matter is not handled carefully. I am encouraged by the response from the parties, all of which want to establish the Assembly with dignity and certainty in its early days.

Lady Hermon: I have a broad smile on my face because the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Presiding Officer will be able to bring together in the same room the Whips from the DUP, Sinn Fein, the UUP and other parties in the Assembly.

Peter Hain: rose

Nigel Dodds: What is new about that?

Peter Hain: Indeed. The parties have always worked together in the Assembly, and the DUP has made it clear that it will do so.
	On the themes raised by the hon. Member for North Down, the Assembly that will sit on 15 May will have different powers from those of the Assembly under devolution. As she has said, I will have wide discretion about how the Assembly will operate, which is entirely defensibleit would not be defensible in any permanent arrangement, but this is not a permanent arrangement. The Assembly will not operate in the manner set out in the Bill after 24 November, but we hope that it will have moved on well before that.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire was kind enough to pay tribute to our working relationship in this House, and I value his counsel greatly. He suggested that the arrangements give priority to Sinn Fein, but that is expressly not the case. We are trying to square a circle between nationalists and republicanswho did not want a shadow Assembly and who made it emphatically clear that they would not turn up in those circumstancesand Unionistswho wanted oneand this particular mongrel is a product of those circumstances.
	As a default position, I have powers as Secretary of State over the choice of Speaker and what matters are referred to the Assembly. However, nothing would delight me more than acting not as a commissar, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has jocularly suggestedby the way, I was mortally wounded by that suggestionbut as a facilitator with a default power to make sure that things move forward.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has asked whether the Assembly could replace my appointee as Presiding Officer, and the Bill makes express provision for that eventuality in paragraph 3(1)(b) and paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1. I have suggested to the parties that we should not turn to that question for the present, because the last thing that the Assembly needs is some kind of squabble, although I have not seen any evidence that there would be any disagreement with Eileen Bell's appointment. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be sensible to argue about that matter at the outset, and the same procedure was followed last time. If there is a widespread wish after the summer either to confirm Eileen Bell's appointment or make a different decision, it will be possible to provide for that. After devolution, which I hope will come before the summer, the Assembly will be master of the question and will be free to elect another Presiding Officer. I mean no disrespect to Eileen Bell in raising that matter, and I am sure that the same is true of the hon. Gentleman.
	It is widely accepted that there are few alternatives. We need the Assembly to select an Executive in order to pave the way for stable devolved Government. If we had reintroduced the Assembly by ending direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 2000, and so ending the authority of Ministers and the special legislative powers, we might have created chaos. Ministers would have been selected by the d'Hondt procedure, but it is far from guaranteed that all parties would have put forward Ministers in the present circumstancesin fact, we all know that they would not have done. Consequently, we would have risked having a serious community imbalance. At the very first opportunity for more than three and a half years, we would have marched ourselves straight into a crisis. That would not be a sensible way in which to begin the difficult task of restoring trust as the basis for the restoration of the institutions.
	Although we hope that an election to the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be possible within six weeks, there must be doubt about that, and if it did not happen, under the scheme of simple restoration, there would necessarily have been an Assembly election, which few people would think a good idea in itself and which would be most unlikely to advance matters. I make no apology for our having brought the Assembly back without its formal powers so that it can discuss in a calmer and more focused atmosphere the way forward to selecting an Executive, and people who will not have worked together for nearly four years can begin to experience it again and to build the necessary trust.
	As to the breadth of the discretion that I am given under the Bill, it is wideI make no secret of thatin the same way as it was in 1998 when the Assembly first met. In an ideal world, no doubt all the issues coveredthe election of the Presiding Officer, times and places of meetings, the preparation of a set of Standing Orders to meet the needs of the Assembly in its current phase, where the parties sat, and so onwould have been resolved by the parties themselves. However, everybody knows that in present circumstances that could have been extraordinarily protracted, and we do not have the time. It would not be the proper way in which to start offthis very important phase of getting devolved Government going again in Northern Ireland.
	The Assembly must come back and concentrate on its core task of moving us towards devolution. At that stage, of course, all these arrangements fall back into the hands of the Assembly. Under the scheme of the Bill, the Standing Orders that applied in 2002 at the moment of suspension will come back into effect, displacing those that I have made. It will control its own business and it can elect its own presiding officer, as I have made clear. At that stage, there will necessarily be a greater degree of common purpose among the parties, because they will have succeeded in agreeing the means of returning to devolution, and that is the point at which they can most profitably look at these questions.

Lady Hermon: Can the Secretary of State point to one section of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that gives the Secretary of State the power, at a transitional period when the Assembly is in shadow mode, to amend or repeal any Act of Parliament and, if he so wishes, to decide that it is expedient to do so without even bringing an order before this House?

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady will know better than I do, because she was there at the time, that I am proceeding much as we did in 1998 in terms of the appointment of a Presiding Officer, the drawing up of Standing Orders, and so on. We will discuss the other points that she raised later.
	I believe that my powers in this regard are justifiable and necessary. However, we will stay faithful to the procedures of the 1998 Act in the devolved Assembly where we can. That, I hope, comes out in the draft standing orders that we have made available. In particular, the selection of the Executive will follow closely the pattern of the 1998 Act. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has looked at the powers in the Bill, including those that the hon. Member for North Down has questioned. It concluded that they are appropriate in the context of the Bill, but suggested that it would be helpful to have further explanations of the way in which they are to be used. I hope that the details that I am providing, particularly the draft standing orders that we have produced, will provide the necessary reassurance.
	The thrust of the Bill is in line with the sense of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which the hon. Member for Foyle tabled. The measure is precisely about restoring the institutions that the Good Friday agreement established. The principle of fidelity to what was agreed in 1998 is important to SDLP MembersI agree with thembut I hope that they agree that the amendment does not add anything of substance. I hope that, having made their points and got those reassurances from me, they will not press the amendments.
	I appreciate that the hon. Member for Foyle has strong concerns for good reasons and I therefore also stress that the talks will be all party and inclusive. I have made that point previously and I repeat it now. Whatever has or has not happened in the past, for whatever reason, it is not possible to proceed through side deals. Talks must be on an all-party basis.
	Amendment No. 6, which my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) tabled, proposes that before restoration, the Assembly should be given a power of veto over legislation that is the preserve of the House. I do not believe that that is appropriate. As was said yesterday, during direct rule, which I do not want to continue for one day longer than necessary, we are accountable here for the good government of Northern Ireland and we should not tie ourselves to following the will of another body.
	Nothing would give me greater pleasure than the restoration of the Assembly, with its Members again taking responsibility for transferred matters. However, I repeat that when the Assembly, on a cross-community basis, expresses views about a specific order or policy, they will be taken into account. That is different from giving a suspended Assembly a power of veto over Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Foyle asked about the Secretary of State being able to refer matters to a business committee. If there is a consensus on the business committee, it can proceed without my getting involved. The last thing I want to do is get involved in the Assembly's internal affairs. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for North Down about seating arrangements and so on. I am happy to leave such matters to the parties and the business committee. I do not want to get involved in where people will sit in the Assembly. It was a matter of contention in the past and, from what I can tell from discussions with all the parties so far, what needs to happen is pretty clear, and that will happen.

Patrick Cormack: The Secretary of State used the words taken into account. What precisely do they mean? I revert to the review of public administration, on which the three elected participating parties are of one mind. They believe that the numbers will lead to what they call Balkanisation, polarisation and so on and that Northern Ireland should be differently configured for local government. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Assembly takes that view, it will be taken into account. Does that mean that it will be reflected in a change?

Peter Hain: I answered that point in respect of water charges. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose contribution I greatly value, we are going around in circles, arguing the same point. If we had a fully restored body, which took responsibility for decisions, that is one matter. Taking account of views means exactly that. In the case of a unanimous or cross-party vote, I would pay careful attention to it. I have no interest as Secretary of State, with an Assembly on its way to restoring the institutionsas I believe is the casein doing anything that will run counter to the Assembly's decisions. That is not my purpose. However, in the meantime we have to govern. That is our responsibility and we are accountable to the House for doing that.
	On the Assembly's procedures, especially those for selecting Ministers, the Bill proposes that the procedure for carrying out the primary tasks will be in line with that for which the 1998 Act provides. I hope that the hon. Member for North Down, who tabled amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 24 to 26, and the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), who tabled amendment No. 4, have been reassured by the initial draft standing orders, which were made available to hon. Members before Second Reading, that, as the right hon. Member for North Antrim said, we are closely following the procedures. I hope that they will therefore not press the amendments.
	The hon. Member for North Down asked why I had put the standing orders in so early. I did it so that the parties could discuss them and the Business Committee could form a view of them. I will happily look at any suggestions for changing any of them.

David Simpson: I have a general question on the point that the Secretary of State made to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). He said that there would be inclusive all-party talks. If, for example, Sinn Fein pulled out of the talks at some stage, would the talks continue with the main parties that were left?

Peter Hain: The term all-party talks means exactly that. No party can exercise a veto, either by not appearing at the talks or by seeking to exercise a veto in some other way. If a party chooses to exclude itself, that is that party's decision.
	On amendment No. 27, I understand the points that the hon. Member for North Down made about defamation and privilege, and I want to address them. I believe that it is right that the Bill should confer qualified privilege on proceedings in the Assembly in its present mode. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East quite properly pointed out to the hon. Lady, that arrangement mirrors the situation that applied in 1998. I hope that it will encourage debate that is free and frank, while discouraging accusations of a malicious nature.
	I should like to go into this matter in some detail, in order to meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Down. She asked why the proceedings in the Assembly in the form envisaged to 24 Novemberor to restoration, if that takes place before thenwere to be given a lesser degree of privilege in regard to defamation than those of the devolved Assembly. The proceedings of the old, fully fledgedas it wereAssembly enjoyed absolute privilege. In this Assembly, privilege is qualified, in a similar way to that in which it was qualified at the preliminary stage last time. That privilege will not protect the maker of defamatory statements if there is proof of malice on his or her part. The Bill gives the same degree of privilege as that accorded to the transitional Assembly in 1998it follows exactly the same formula. That was our precedent. Indeed, it was the precedent for much of what we have put into the Bill.
	Absolute privilege tends to be conferred only on fully functioning legislatures. Conferring qualified privilege under the Bill is therefore appropriate and reflects the fact that the Assembly has not been fully restored. At a time when there are serious party differencesalthough we are seeking to narrow themit does not seem right to give freedom from malicious defamatory statements.
	The Bill does not alter the position of the media in relation to privilege. It might assist the House if I point out that the Bill allows for statements in the Assembly to be privileged, excluding those made with malice, whether made by Assembly Members or by those who fairly and accurately report them in the media.
	On the name of the Assembly, I cannot accept that it should be known as anything other than the Assembly. As the hon. Members for North Down and for Montgomeryshire have pointed out, the Assembly is composed of all those who have been elected to the full Assembly and who will constitute it on restoration. I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East in that respect. One of the key functions of the Assembly is the selection of an Executive. Once that function has been discharged, the way will be open for the restoration of all the devolved institutions and the resumption of the full legislative and other powers of the fully restored Assembly. The proposals by the hon. Member for North Down in amendments Nos. 21 to 23 that it should be known as the Forum would be misleading, although I know that that is not her intention. I hope that she will not press her amendments to a vote.
	To conclude, Mrs. HealI am proud, as a Welsh MP, that a proud Welsh woman is in the Chair, whose husband is a proud member of my local rugby club[Laughter.] I think that we had better call it a day at that
	I want to reassure right hon. and hon. Members who have raised important points that the new Assembly, which is a difficult task and a fragile flower, is on its way, I believe, to restoration of the institutions. We need to do that by consensus. We have put in the structures with a lot of care and thought, modelled in many respects on what happened in 1998, giving the Assembly the opportunity to take full charge of its affairs, to decide what it wants, to vote on what it wants and to discuss what it wants. In that transition, a default position remains in my hands as Secretary of State to make sure that it is able to proceed in that consensual way, which I hope that it does. I hope that the whole House will back the Bill, and that those who tabled the amendments will, on hearing my reassurances, withdraw them.

Mark Durkan: In respect of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, the Secretary of State has indicated that the Government's purpose in the Bill, and the whole point of the exercise, is to give effect to re-establishing the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. On that basis, he feels that the amendments add nothing. In introducing them, I said that they were probing amendments to register that point, which was certainly made to us in meetings with the British and Irish Governments and registered strongly by the Taoiseach, not only in his joint statement with the Prime Minister on 2 March but on several other occasions. I am glad that our amendments have brought such an explicit statement from the Secretary of State. The Minister with responsibility for political development, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State, will be glad to hear that I can take yes for an answer. On that basis, we will not press the amendments to a vote.
	Among the various comments on amendments Nos. 7 and 8, there was some misunderstanding of their purpose. The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not in his place, but I point out to him that I did not at any stage say that I believed that the DUP's only intent was to go into the Assembly to wreck it. How could I say that, in circumstances in which it is clear to all of us that this new creature is very much along the lines that the DUP specifically advocated? If anything, on the basis of his contribution yesterday, the DUP's intention would not be to bring down this new creature but to prolong its existence. Clearly, subsequent amendments that they have tabled would do away with the 25 November deadline. He has therefore misapprehended my concern.
	In relation to the position of the DUP, I believe that, contrary to 25 November and the notion of a proposed alternative representing a threat to the DUP, in the overall political scheme, the DUP might well be comfortable in those circumstances. It can then make a different case that closing the book on devolution is effectively closing the book on devolution as per the agreement. Drawing down the curtain, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, on the process since 1998those were the Secretary of State's wordscan quickly be converted by the DUP to drawing down the curtain on the Good Friday agreement. As Governments search for an alternative that they do not yet have, the DUP will say, We always advocated an alternative. The Governments are proposing an alternative that is not agreed; we want an alternative that is agreed. A lot of people in Northern Ireland, including some nationalists, naively believe that the DUP is somehow under the cosh in respect of 25 November and some other alternative, but I do not believe that the DUP appears particularly frightened by that prospect. I also put it on record that Sinn Fein might have an interest in seeing a crash at that stage, as long as it can blame it on the DUP.
	We wanted the Assembly to be able to consider possible solutions. If it seems that we are facing total crash and burn, and if there are proposals that could give life to implementation of the Good Friday agreement, the Assembly should be able to consider those proposals. It would do so on an agreed and an inclusive basis, with no side deals or anything else of that kind.I was pleased when the Secretary of State said that there would be no side deals in the negotiations, although he will probably become tired of being continually asked to give assurances in that regard. I accept his assurance and hope that it will extend to all levels of government.
	As long ago as 1998, we were negotiating the Good Friday agreement in Castle buildings a few weeks away from Good Friday, grappling with the minutiae of the proposals for strands 1, 2 and 3. Two parties were supposedly negotiating with the others, and supposedly negotiating with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). The right hon. Gentleman, then the Minister responsible for political development, was chairing the strand 1 talks while negotiating with Senator George Mitchell, who was chairing the talks overall. Those two parties, the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP, received a fax from Downing street giving an outline of what the strand 1 outcome should be.
	The SDLP made it clear, in fairly stark terms, that we were not negotiating with a fax machine, whether it was in Downing street or anywhere else. If the Prime Minister wanted to contribute to the negotiations, he should come to Castle buildings and join in the talks with all the parties and with the Irish Government. Those who were chairing the talks, including the political development Minister, did not know about the faxes from Downing street until we told them.
	I hope that that answers the insinuation from some people that the SDLP has not always stood for inclusion, and has been prepared to do deals on its own or in its own way. We have never done that. We are absolutely clear about the integrity of the principle of inclusion, which is why we wrote it into the agreement, ensuring the inclusion of people who opposed the agreement. We always maintained at the time that the Good Friday agreement and its institutions, as they worked and grew, would be capable of involving in partnership and co-operation not just Unionists and nationalists, not just republicans and loyalists, but those who voted yes and those who voted no. We did not want a new permanent divide in Northern Ireland's political life.
	I believe that the institutions of the Good Friday agreement are capable of sustaining such partnership and co-operation. That is whythis answers the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)I do not accept that changes to the agreement are a necessary precondition for restoration. After all, if the suspension had never happened in the first place and if the DUP, with the mandate that it secured, had entered unsuspended institutions, the DUP would have taken office in those institutions. It would then have used its strength in those institutions, and in the context of a formal review of the agreement, to oversee some of the changes that it seeks. It would find thatas, in fact, its members knowmany of us have proposed changes in the workings of the agreement to improve it, at a number of levels and a number of ways. We have even proposed changes in the 1998 Act, because many changes could be made to the Act without denting the agreement.
	We do not wish to divide the Committee on amendment No. 7. I shall deal with amendment No. 6 shortly. As for the other amendments, I understand the point that has been made about the Presiding Officer. We feel that it might seem petty, and might be misrepresented and misunderstood, if we created a scramble over the appointment of the Presiding Officer in the current circumstances. People might think that we had something against Eileen Bell, which we do not.
	It is interesting that Eileen Bell has been appointed Speaker and Eileen Paisley has been appointed to the House of Lords. Given the common assumption that things happen in threes, Eileens up and down the country are probably waiting with bated breath for some wonderful appointments to come their way.
	We will certainly work with Eileen Bell as Speaker. In the circumstances, it is probably better to avoid any unseemly stand-off in regard to the Presiding Officer in the early days of this new creature. As someone who comes from Derry, and who is looking across the Floor at someone who clearly comes from Londonderry, I am not going to get into the issue of what we should call the Assembly; the most important thing is what we do in it.
	As many Members have said, amendment No. 6 is in many ways a modest proposal. It is a modest test of the truth of the Secretary of State's assurance that he wants Assembly Members to have responsibility; indeed, he has sometimes said that he wants them to have a powerful influence. What is wrong, therefore, with giving the Assembly the power merely of negative resolution over Orders in Council on a cross-community basis? It is not a veto in the pocket of any one party or community, so it could not be abused. The Secretary of State doubted whether there would be cross-party support for providing such a power. I agree that there would not have been cross-party support for a power of affirmative resolution, which would have given a veto to one party or community, but I cannot see what objection even Sinn Fein would have to proving the power of negative resolution on a cross-community basis. If we are meant to participate in this Assembly in anticipation of taking on powers and doing good things, surely we want the ability stop some of the bad proposals coming through via Orders in Council. As we look toward achieving restoration, what is wrong with our being given the power, on a cross-community basis, to put a stop to the gallop of direct rule via Orders in Council?
	The Secretary of State said that that cannot be done because such matters are for Parliament to decide and cannot be decided by anybody else. Yet we are told constantly that Parliament does not want to legislate on these matters via Orders in Councilthat it wants them to be properly the business of people in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State tells us that he will not allow us to oppose Orders in Council by way of cross-community support, yet he cites that issue as the very reason why he will advise Parliament against giving us that power.
	The Secretary of State says, We cannot allow anybody else to decide on issues that are a matter for Parliament. I do not like to remind him and his Ministers of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but it comes to mind. We were told that the Government and, through them, this Parliament, were honour-boundhideboundto introduce legislation that in fact, nobody liked, agreed with or could justify to victims. We were told that there would be dire consequences if it was not passed, but we were not told what they would be, what the threat was or where it came from. The Bill was withdrawnand the sky still has not fallen in. We were told that an ulterior entity had a hold and a prior say that bound this Parliament and the Government. In the light of that, I do not regard the Secretary of State's argument as very strong.

Lembit �pik: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State's original argument was that there was no cross-party support for giving the Assembly these additional powers. Given that it is perfectly obvious that every party represented hereapart from Government Front Benchersagrees with such a proposal, the Secretary of State's argument falls. Is the hon. Gentleman, like me, a bit suspicious of the fact that the Secretary of State then moved on to a different set of justifications for not providing such powers? The best thing that the Secretary of State could do is to recognise the consensus that exists here and give the Assembly something serious to do.

Mark Durkan: I agree fully with the hon. Gentleman. The implication of the Secretary of State's earlier remark was that Sinn Fein might not agree with such a proposal. I can certainly see that Sinn Fein would not agree with giving the power of affirmative resolution; nor would we, and we would not expect the Government to agree to doing so. Such a power would give the various parties and communities a veto in their pocket on all manner of issues.
	Whenever Orders in Council are dealt with in this very unsatisfactory way, we are told that the problem is that different parties support different proposals. However, all that we are trying to do is to give formal expression and record to the weight of party opinion and consideration. This is a relatively modest proposal and if the Secretary of State cannot accept it, I will be disappointed.

Peter Hain: I am provoked into intervening briefly because the hon. Gentleman's partytogether with Sinn Feindid not want the shadow Assembly for which he is now arguing. We could have been in a different position if he had taken a different view.

Mark Durkan: Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain to us at some point the difference between a shadow Assembly and what we have, because it seems to be a shady, shadowy sort of affair anyway. Given that most of the legislation is recycled from the original Northern Ireland Act 1998, which did give us a shadow Assembly, it is hard to see the difference. Our concern was having an Assembly that had powers that people would become comfortable with, such as powers of affirmative resolution and a greater degree of legislative initiative than at present.
	We propose these modest powers to test what the Secretary of State is saying and to add to people's justification for participating in this particular Assembly. We want to be able to say that it is not just a talking shop. We certainly want to be able to say that it will not be a talked-at shop or a talked-down-to shop, with business people and others coming in and talking to us as though we had no experience of devolution. We need some ongoing justification of purpose and, in particular, people in the community who want to see their elected representatives doing things for them in their mandated institutions. There would be some point in looking to the Assembly if it at least had the power of political estoppel or temporary injunction on Orders in Council for its lifetime. At least then people from business could come not to give us bland talks, but to advise us on decisions that we could take to affect the fate of an Order in Council. I do not see how the Secretary of State can argue against putting business, trade unions and community interests in such positive and purposeful engagement with the Assembly, as opposed to the talking-shop style exchange that he seems to envisage.
	For that reason, we will not seek to divide the House on amendment No. 7, but we wish to vote on amendment No. 6. I understand that that cannot happen now, but only if we reach schedule 1 by 6 pm. On that basis, I ask the Secretary of State to think again and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Selection of persons to be Ministers on restoration of devolved government

Nigel Dodds: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'before 25th November 2006'.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1 in page 2, line 10, at end insert
	'(4A) Condition 4 is that parliament has legislated to give effect to any changes necessary to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in order to allow conditions 1 to 3 to have effect.'.
	No. 14, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
	'(4A) Condition 4 is that the IMC shall have reported that they believe that no paramilitary, criminal or other illegal activity is being carried out by or on behalf of the Provisional IRA.'.
	No. 11, in schedule 3, page 9, line 4, leave out paragraph 4.

Nigel Dodds: We had a wide debate on the previous group of amendments and we now come to a group of amendments tabled mostly by my party. The purpose of the amendments is to allow the selection of a First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other Ministers, under the arrangements set out in schedule 2, if necessary after the deadline of 24 November 2006. As the legislation is currently drafted, the procedure can no longer be used after the deadline. That is because of the provisions of clause 2(1)(b) and schedule 3(4). Under the Bill as it stands, the only way to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and to select other Ministers, will be under the arrangements in the 1998 Act, or as it may be amended in the autumn.
	Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 do not take away the capacity of the Secretary of State to take any action on 24 November, but merely leave options open that may be more appropriate if progress cannot be made by that date but could be made by May 2007. The amendments simply give the Secretary of State options, rather than closing them down or forcing him to come to the House at another stage with new legislation. We have had enough experience recently of new legislation dealing with Northern Ireland and Members would not be terribly pleased if we had to go through the whole process again.
	If it is not possible to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly before 24 November but proves possible thereaftera circumstance that is catered for in the measurethe many logistical arrangements may mean that it will be easier to make progress on the basis of the Secretary of State's standing orders than on the basis of the Northern Ireland Act. In that event, no Speaker would be electedthe role would have to be re-signed and those in power in 2003 would return to office on restoration. If the Assembly was restored and a First Minister and Deputy First Minister could not be elected, the countdown to an election would begin, despite the Secretary of State's saying that there would be no new elections to the institutions.

Lady Hermon: As there are parties who want to construe the DUP as having ulterior motives, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman took this opportunity to put on the record that changing the date is not because the DUP wants to maintain a talking shop on the hill at Stormont.

Nigel Dodds: I am happy to say once again, as most of my hon. Friends said yesterday on Second Reading, that of course we are not in the business of trying to create or maintain a talking shop. Indeed, if amendment No. 6 is pushed to a Division, we shall go into the Lobby to support it. We have always wanted the Assembly that is to be created to have the maximum authority and power and there have been some useful suggestions for making direct rule more accountable in the interim period. That would be sensible and I think that view is shared by parties in Northern Ireland.
	We want to take account of the reality spelled out yesterday. When we reach the last week of November, the IRA and Sinn Fein may not have done everything necessary to make them acceptable as members of a Northern Ireland Executive. Let us be frank. Given the findings of the Independent Monitoring Commission report and the current circumstances, it will require a major step change in the provisionals' current attitude to criminality and other things that disqualify them from office to enable them to meet that deadlinealthough who knows what might happen? My party leader has already told us that he believes in miracles. Given his theological position, no one should be surprised at that statement. I believe in miracles, tooI share many of my right hon. Friend's theological positions as well as his political one.
	The provisional movement has let us down many times in the past, however, and it has a fair way to go to convince people that it now has a purely democratic and peaceful methodology. It also has a considerable way to go on policing, as we all know. In the Secretary of State's comments in this place and outside over the past few days, he has referred to policing only in the context of the devolution of policing and justice powers. However, as I said in my contribution to the British-Irish interparliamentary body in Killarney, it is essential to recognise that for members of any party to exercise power as Ministers in any part of the United Kingdom it is extremely important not only that they support the police but that they urge their supporters and the community at large to give information to the police. They should not be half-hearted or equivocal about that matter. That extremely important issue cannot be ducked, set aside or ignored. So those in the provisional movement must deal with lots of issues. They are the ones who are holding up progress and who apparently stand in the way of the restoration of the Executivenot the DUP or the Unionist population.
	Amendment No. 14 would add a requirement to clause 2 that must be met before the Assembly can be restored. A number of conditions are set down in the Bill that must be met before a restoration order can be made, but amendment No. 14 would have the effect of adding the condition that the IMC must have reported that
	no paramilitary, criminal or other illegal activity is being carried out by or on behalf of the Provisional IRA.
	Of course, we all know, given the political reality of the situation, what the circumstances must be, but as well as understanding that, it is important that the Bill refers to the outstanding issue of the day, which must be dealt with before the Executive can be restored. It is not just simply a matter of the parties getting together to elect a First Minister and appointing other Ministers; it is the central issue: whether or not Sinn Fein and the IRA have committed themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I believe that the Bill should refer to that condition, as well as it just being understood as a political necessity. That is the purpose of putting that condition in the Bill.
	I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate on this group of amendments, he will seriously consider the matters that we have proposedI emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friendsin the sense that we want to see this process work. We want to see it deliver. We want to see the restoration of devolution, but we want to see it restored in the right circumstances and in the right conditions.
	We do not believe in the use of an arbitrary deadline set down by the Government that may not be met, not as a result of any unwillingness on the part of Unionists or any other democratic party to play their role in devolution, but because of the failure of the republican movement to measure up to what needs to be done. It would be entirely wrong then to see the whole edifice of devolution crash down and for the people of Northern Ireland to suffer in those circumstances. I believe that it is absolutely essential that we should try to maintain the momentum and to try to restore to Northern Ireland the maximum degree of devolution that can be possibly attained in those circumstances.

Lembit �pik: I rise to speak to amendment No. 1, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), which is essentially a probing amendment. We are concerned whether there will be enough time for Parliament to legislate to bring into effect any change to the workings of the Assembly that might be needed before a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister can be elected. We would like the Government to assure us that there will be proper time for Parliament to consider the implications of any change to the workings of the Assembly. That is particularly important, as it is the duty of the two Governmentsthe one here and the one in Dublinin conjunction with the Assembly, to review and report on the operation of the Assembly. Colleagues will remember that section 11 of the Good Friday agreement spelt that out very specifically under the heading of Validation, Implementation and Review. I quote paragraph 8, which states:
	Notwithstanding the above, each institution will publish an annual report on its operations. In addition, the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation.
	As Ministers know, I was very dissatisfied with the Government's tardiness in conducting that kind of review. The Alliance party was assured that a review would take place. There was enormous obfuscation and delay, prior to the appointment of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). In the end, the work that has taken place has not really addressed some of the core issuesfor example, the question of political designation. I covered that in an earlier speech and do not need to repeat my criticisms now. Amendment No. 1 asks the Government to make clear how they see the progress towards making sure that sensible changes can be introduced before the First and Deputy First Ministers are elected, without the sham and farce of redesignation being forced on Alliance party members or anybody else.
	I will comment briefly on the other amendments. It seems that amendments Nos. 10 and 11 both seek to remove the deadline from the Bill. If I understand things correctly, that would mean that the proposal for an interim Assembly in the Bill could carry on indefinitely, which is not a good idea. My judgment is that the 24 November deadline is necessary to resolve which way we are going to go with Northern Ireland politics.
	I am more sympathetic to amendment No. 14. It is clear that we all want to see the end of criminality, in all its formsnot just the so-called politically motivated paramilitary activity. I am encouraged by what the Independent Monitoring Commission has said in its most recent assessment of the matterthe 10th report. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about amendment No. 14, because surely it contains a reasonable expectation.

Laurence Robertson: I would like to contribute briefly to the debate on amendments Nos. 10 and 14, in particular. I can see the benefit of having an end-date in place. It does tend to concentrate the mind. However, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said yesterday, quite correctly, we have seen so many deadlines come and go in Northern Ireland. I suppose I have to question whether there can be any confidence in the idea that this is a real deadline. I understand fully, and take completely at face value, the assurances that the Secretary of State gave yesterday that it is a deadline, but there are ways of setting further deadlines and still retaining this one. Things can be fudged in one way or another.
	I also take the point made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who has been present for virtually all the debatehe has just left his place for a moment. If we get to, say, 20 November and we are almost there, but not quite, is it right to let the whole thing fall? That is a powerful point. Although I can see the point of a deadline, I think that, on balance, the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) carries a lot of weight and we will therefore support the Democratic Unionist party if the matter is pressed to a vote.
	Amendment No. 14 is difficult to disagree with. The Government have set so much store by what the IMC is saying.

Lembit �pik: I am a little surprised by what I think that the hon. Gentleman just said. He said that he would support the removal of the deadlines, if that was pushed to a vote. I am not quite sure why he would do that because, although I am pretty sceptical about the Government's willingness to hold to a deadline, I am absolutely certain that the absence of a deadline would guarantee that we will live with this halfway house of an Assembly for the rest of our natural lives.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was rather scathing about deadlines himself yesterday. I have every respect for this ParliamentI am sure that hon. Members share that view. I have come into the Chamberin the case not only of this Bill, but the previous Bill relating to Northern Irelandundecided on how to vote on a number of issues and I have listened to the arguments. Parliament is at its best when hon. Members do that and are not necessarily whipped into one line or another. [Interruption.] The Minister is laughing, but I make no apology for listening to the debate, which I am sure that he does regularly. I am not entirely convinced that we are right to support the DUP on amendment No. 10, but having listened to the arguments made by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), we will, on balance, do so.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that his vote is negotiable, so perhaps I can persuade him to swing back towards the case for deadlines. The inference from what he says is that a Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would not impose a deadline on the interim Assembly. That worries me, so I ask him to think about it. Is he really saying that the antidote to flexible deadlines is no deadline at all? It is my judgment that any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have to impose a deadline to get a resolution of the situation.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman asks me to speculate about what we would do in government. It is not that far off, so we will have to face up to those questions, but we are not quite there yet. I want to move on from this point because there are other things to discuss, but I will not dodge the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is asking whether no deadline is better than a deadline that is all over the place, I would suggest that it probably is.

Nigel Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment would not take away the deadline because the Secretary of State would still be able to remove salaries and stop the Assembly from meeting? However, it would mean that the fall-back position would be much softer than the hard landing with a crash and the complete end of everything that would be effect of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: I am persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's eloquence. He made the important point earlier that if we were almost to reach the deadline, surely it would be better to let the Assembly to continue to run for a whileat least we would have somethingthan to get rid of everything. That could lead to full devolution more quickly than would otherwise be the case, so, on balance, we will support the DUP if the amendment is pressed to a Division.
	The Government set a good deal of store by what the IMC says and I understand why the Secretary of State quoted from the report extensively yesterday. I would be surprised if the Government opposed amendment No. 14. I accept that the IMC cannot dictate what we do in the House because that is up to hon. Members. However, I also accept that there are worries among the Unionist parties and, probably, the SDLP about going into government with people who have not fully given up violence. It does no one on the Unionist side, including me, any good to pretend that there was no good news in yesterday's reportno one has suggested thatbut it does the Government no good to pretend that the whole report represented a clean bill of health. I quoted at length yesterday the parts of the report that said that senior members of the IRA were still involved in criminality and cited specific expulsions that were still being carried out by the IRA. That was all in the report as well as the good news, so if we are to accept the IMC report, we must accept the whole report. I thus have a lot of sympathy with amendment No. 14, too.

Alasdair McDonnell: I intend to be brief. I am not quite as vociferous, or windy, as some of my colleagues and hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber.
	Clause 2 provides that if three conditions are met the Secretary of State will make an order of restoration. The conditions are that a First Minister and Deputy First Minister are elected, that persons are nominated as Ministers, and that each of them takes a pledge of office. I am deeply worried about amendment No. 10, because it would make the Assembly open-ended. The Assembly should not be open-ended because that would undermine the concentrated effort that is required to get devolution back in place.
	I note that DUP colleagues have claimed that the Bill means that the 1998 agreement is dead. That is an exaggerated notion of their mandate. We all have mandates and we can all count numbers, but the place to exercise the mandate and count the numbers is on the Floor of the Assembly when it is reconvened.
	We oppose any aspect or concept of a shadow, powerless Assembly, because that could last for ever. The deadline is an essential backstop position, which concentrates minds and gets things done.
	I fear that amendment No. 1 would set the precondition for restoration whereby Westminster has to legislate for changes to get the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister elected and an Executive formed. There is nothing wrong with the terms and the details that we worked out in 1998; nor was there anything wrong with the agreement reached in 1998. What was wrong was that a number of the parties failed to honour and implement their responsibilities in 1998 and subsequently. I shall not point fingers. Everyone knows who the wrecking parties were, and it was not the SDLP or the Ulster Unionists. Frankly, the problem had nothing to do with the institutions, the regulations, the Standing Orders and the concepts. Rather, it was the outright refusal by the provos to destroy their weapons. To some extent, that was supplemented, aided and abetted by the refusal by some Unionist politicians to share power.
	It would be a profound mistake to make changes to the agreement, or the 1998 Act that flowed from the agreement, a precondition for restoration. Of course, improvements can be made to the working institutions. Improvements can always be made and development can always take place. We gave a long list of improvements that we wanted to see at the conference at Leeds castle two years ago. All of them were consistent with the Good Friday agreement. However, such matters need to be worked out on the Floor of the Assembly or on the margins of Assembly meetings, and between the parties involved. I am worried that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who has always been a good friend and a good supporter of peace and progress in Northern Ireland, has taken up the position set out in amendment No. 1. However, we will have a chance to discuss that later.
	I am also deeply concerned about amendment No. 14. Frankly, for the reasons that I outlined, it is unnecessary and irrelevant. The terms will not have been met if we are depending on the IMC. We do not need to hang ourselves on the amendment. I outlined the terms for electing a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, and for each of them taking the pledge. It appears that the DUP cannot trust itself and will not participate, but we cannot meet the primary conditions of clause 2 without its support. So why do we need an amendment, as a belt-and-braces operation, to ensure that if one of them strays a wee bit, he is pulled back? It is a sort of choke lead.
	The DUP is trying to pass the buck for taking up its position. If it has issues with which it wants to deal, let us do that face on, eyeball to eyeball, and, in a gentlemanly fashion, sort them out. We do not need the amendment. Again, the substance of it should be dealt with on the Floor of the Assembly. The amendment makes unreasonable demands and tries to remove the independence of the IMC, an independent body, and suck it in as a partisan political player. We are the political players. Let us sort out the issues.
	The amendment also places a loaded gun, so to speak, in the hands of a handful of rogue provos in various places around the country, with the result that half a dozen people can prevent any progress from being made by carrying out systematic disruption that causes the IMC to report negatively on one small case. I do not wish to delay the Committee further. My colleagues and I are opposed to the amendments for the reasons that I have outlined.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I support the amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
	I can assure the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) that the DUP is confident of its position and will remain so. As for being afraid to sit down and talk to the SDLP, we are more than happy to do that at any time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that for years SDLP members ran to the Irish Government with every problem that they had and every issue that they wanted resolved. Off they went to Dublin to get it fixed by the Irish Government, so we will take no lectures from the SDLP about sitting down with our compatriots in Northern Ireland to try to resolve issues.

Alasdair McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain what he found wrong with our talking to the Irish Government? We have been a consensus-building party for 30 years. I am witnessing the transition from a wrecking party to a party that is trying to be semi-constructive. The Democratic Unionists were in Killarney last weekend. They have been running up and down to Dublin.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask all hon. Members to direct their comments to the amendments before the Committee.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: We will certainly do that, Mrs. Heal.
	On amendment No. 10 and the deadline, I welcome what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said. I congratulate him on his excellent contribution to our debates and on the job that he is doing on the Front Bench for the loyal Opposition. I can tell him that he is held in high esteem in Northern Ireland. He is right about the deadline. The history of the process is littered with the wreckage of deadlines that were passed. Even the Belfast agreement set deadlines for decommissioning and other things, and we saw the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries drive a coach and horses through those deadlines.
	My difficulty is that the current position does not give the Secretary of State sufficient flexibility in circumstances where real progress has been made, but we have not quite got there in terms of what is required from the IRA to end criminality and paramilitarism. Are the Government seriously suggesting that in circumstances where we had another IMC report that indicated progress but concluded that some level of activity was continuing, they would pull the plug on the entire process?
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is right. They would be pulling the plug on the Belfast agreement and all that goes with it. He argued that that would be welcomed by Democratic Unionists. We have proposed changes to the institutions. We tabled the amendment to bring about changes to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the institutions, and especially to ensure proper lines of accountability.
	Let us be clear. Our motivation is to ensure that we get it absolutely right. We do not want, as has been suggested by some Members, to delay the establishment of devolution in Northern Ireland indefinitely. Our party is a devolutionist party, and it believes in a local Government in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, we would gladly form an Executive today with the democratic parties in the Assembly, including the Social Democratic and Labour party. We have clearly stated that, but we have a difficulty with Sinn Feina potential member of a future Executivegiven its links with the IRA and ongoing IRA criminality. That is a major problem for us, together with the fact that Sinn Fein does not support the police and the rule of law. Those issues must be resolved.
	Let me make it clear that indefinite direct rule is not in our interests or the interests of the people whom we represent. Nor are we interested in being part of an assembly that merely discusses issues and does not ever reach the point of forming an Executive. In amendment No. 10, we do not seek an open-ended scenario in which we simply delay, procrastinate and spin things out for years to come. We are realistic: we know that that will not be allowed to happen. However, the amendment gives us a little more flexibility in the process if progress is made by 24 November, enabling the Secretary of State to keep things going for a further period. The basic concept of the Assembly in the format proposed by the Government is to engage people in issues to help to build trust. That is important, but the exchanges across the Chamber this afternoon demonstrate that it is not just a matter of building trust between our party and the republican elements in our society.
	Without doubt, there are many issues at the moment, and Unionists have very little trust in Sinn Fein's position. It is clear from the comments of SDLP Members that they do not trust the DUP's bona fides or our position. We are equally disappointed by their approach to the political process in recent years. At times, they try to out-Sinn Fein Sinn Fein; at times, they take a position that is so hard-line and tough that it makes Gerry Adams look like a poodle. That is unhelpful, and they have refused to contemplate sharing power with Unionists unless their big brothers in Sinn Fein are at their side. I wish that the SDLP would learn to stand on its own two feet. Instead of hiding behind the Irish Government and Sinn Fein, it should rely on its own strength and consider serving in government with Unionists. However, I have said enough about the issue.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we adopted a clear position on policing. Our position on the Policing Board was not defined or confined by Sinn Fein or anyone else.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I accept that, and I applaud the position that the SDLP took after many years of refusing to support the police and refusing to take up seats on the Police Authority. Finally, after 30 years, it pressed its agenda and was able to wring out substantial changes to policing in Northern Ireland. It decided that it was going to support the police, which we welcome. However, I am not talking about policing but about the formation of an Executive or a Government for the people of Northern Ireland. I regret very much the fact that the SDLP has not had the courage to step out and do with an Executive what it was prepared to do with the Policing Board.
	I do not accept the distinction between the operation of the Policing Board and the operation of an Executive in Northern Ireland. If the SDLP is prepared to serve with Unionists on a Policing Board and take responsibility for one of the most important issues in Northern Ireland, why on earth can it not do that with us on education, health, roads, housing, planning and all the matters that affect the people whom we represent? I would like that to happen, and I await the day when there is genuine power sharing in Down council, so that the DUP can finally get a look-in and secure a senior appointment. It would be nice to see the SDLP exercising real power sharing in places such as Down district, but we are patient and will wait for that day. Perhaps Down district will be able to match what happens in neighbouring Lisburn, the city that I represent, in terms of the parity that we give to the SDLP. Of the 30 councillors on Lisburn council, only threeor 10 per cent.belong to the SDLP.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interesting though that may be, it is not relevant to the amendment.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I suppose that I was expanding the point a little, Mrs. Heal, but we live and travel in hope that we will get the House's support for the amendment. We are trying to be constructive: we want to ensure that we make progress but with a helpful degree of flexibility.

David Hanson: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for stepping in to move the amendment on behalf of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
	We have been debating three issues in connection with the amendment. The first has to do with the deadline at the end of the period proposed in the Bill, and the second relates to the approach adopted by the provisional IRA and others to arms decommissioning and criminality. Thirdly, we debated the issues raised in amendment No. 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). I shall deal with each matter in turn.
	My first remarks are directed to the hon. Members for Belfast, North and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), and to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who speaks for the official Opposition on these matters. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he and the Government as a whole are committed, for clear and appropriate reasons, to setting a deadline for the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister says that the Government are committed to the deadline, but reports in the media and elsewhere suggest that it is really the Dublin Government who are pushing it, at the behest of some parties. Will he comment on that? Are not the Government here more open minded about the matter than he is trying to suggest?

David Hanson: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were present in Armagh on 6 April, as were the Taoiseach and I, when these proposalsfor this Bill and to restore the Assemblywere brought forward. The Government of the Irish Republic and the British Government are unanimous about the need to include a deadline in this Bill.
	From my perspective, I do not think it appropriate for the people of Northern Ireland to expect that the process will remain open-ended for ever. We have to set a deadline, for a variety of reasons. First, it puts on the parties involved the pressure that must be applied if we are to resolve the question of the Assembly. Secondly, the Assembly elections in May next year are rushing towards us. These things tend to go quickly, and even the hon. Members for Belfast, North, for Lagan Valley and for Tewkesbury must recognise that it is impractical and impossible to ask the people of Northern Ireland to vote again for an Assembly that does not sit, and for Members who do not participate in their legislative functions, even though they maintain their strong constituency roles.
	For those reasons, we need to set a deadline, and we have picked 25 November. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said that he will support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, North, but that would remove the deadline from the Bill completely. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) have explained, the absence of a deadline would leave us with an open-ended commitment, with the result that there would be no pressure on the parties to resolve the key issues.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister agree that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) still pertains? If the Government want to exert pressure, they retain the powernotwithstanding the amendmentto cease at a stroke all allowances and salaries paid to all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Minister wants pressure, that pressure can be applied at any time between now and 24 November, and beyond.

David Hanson: The Government will look at exercising that pressure and that power. However, I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, North because we believe that we must implement a deadline for the resolution of the Executive election for the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The deadline has been implemented so that we can secure that election in a reasonable time before 25 November and do what everyone who has spoken on both days of this debate wants to do, which is to take power from the British Government and give it back to the hon. Member for Belfast, North and his colleagues in Northern Ireland. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South that no deadline would mean an open-ended commitment. The deadline is not a threat, and it reflects the political reality of the situation.
	I recognise that DUP Members and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) need to have trust in the republican movement that paramilitary activity and criminality have ceased, which is key to their entering the Assembly. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who clearly expressed that point on Second Reading. I understand that an end to paramilitary activity, criminality and the possession of arms by the IRA is central to entry into the Assembly for the DUP.
	As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury recognised, progress has been made, and I shall pick a few quotes from yesterday's IMC report to illustrate that point. Paragraph 2.13 states:
	It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path . . . We have noted the remarks by Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Fin
	that
	the war is over and that the movement is committed to the alternative political path.
	Paragraph 2.14 states that
	the leadership is engaged in a challenging task in ensuring full compliance with this strategy.
	Paragraph 2.15 makes a key point:
	We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have had no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack.
	Finally, paragraph 2.16 states:
	We have found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging in it.
	I recognise that until those matters are fully resolved, DUP Members will have difficulty in entering the Assembly, and I also recognise that the key to their entering the Assembly is the IMC report that will be introduced in October and November this year. However, I cannot support putting that point as a precondition in Bill in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Belfast, North.

Laurence Robertson: It would do Conservative Members no good to deny the significant progress in the IMC report, but it does the Government no good to quote selectively, which the Minister has done again. I shall give him the sentence immediately before his final quote:
	We also believe that in a separate incident PIRA itself may have been associated with the forced departure of somebody from the area where he lived.
	That is the second of two quotes in paragraph 2.15 about continued expulsions by the IRA. As the Minister knows, other parts of the IMC report mention senior members of the IRA who are involved in criminality. It does not do either side any good to quote selectively.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman and I have had a good relationship in the time that we have shadowed each other, and he knows that I do not share his view that I am trying to quote selectively. I recognise that there is still work to be done by the Provisional IRA, but I say to him genuinely and honestly that I believe in the IMC report, and my understanding is that the Provisional IRA leadership are now committed to a political, peaceful role for their ends.
	The task for the next few months is to secure that response by all members of the organisation in all parts of Northern Ireland. The IMC report in October or November this year will be critical to the judgments made by hon. Members. I hope that they can have sufficient confidence to go into the Assembly during May on that basis, but I recognise that they probably will not for the reason that the right hon. Member for North Antrim gave yesterdaynamely, that the conditions are not right. However, I do not believe that including such provisions in the Bill will assist in making those conditions right. The IMC report is vital in this respect.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that it is not sufficient merely for the IMC to say that criminality and so on has ceased, but that there is also a need for those who wish to be involved in the Assembly to give full and unequivocal support to the police? It is a case not only of stopping carrying out criminal activities, but of supporting those who are trying to deal with criminality.

David Hanson: Absolutely; I agree 110 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to the day when Sinn Fein Membersand SDLP Memberstake their places on the Policing Board. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that adherence to the rule of law is fundamental to the operation of a democratic society and that support for the police in operating in that legislative framework is important. When we debated the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we discussed the way in which we can, I hope, devolve policing and criminal justice in due course. I understand where hon. Members want to get to, how they want to get there, and the barriers that prevent them from participating in the Assembly, but putting in a legislative framework will not meet that objective. They need certain conditions to be met in order for their confidence to be restored and for their trust in the process to go forward. That is self-evident from their speeches yesterday and today.
	I do not believe that amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, would add anything to the Bill. I hope that I say that in a helpful mode. Leaving aside the slight oddity of one Bill binding this House to the passing of a further Bill, I cannot see how the amendment would have any practical effect, because the Bill already sets three conditions that must be met before devolution can be restored.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned redesignation and the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. We have acknowledged that several parties have major concerns about institutional matters that they want to be addressed before the restoration of the Assembly. I am happy to have discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Gentleman's sister party, the Alliance party. We will talk to David Ford and other colleagues to see whether we can get accommodation and agreement between his sister party and the other parties that are represented in the Assembly. That is essential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already dealt with this point. By definition, the conditions will not be met until legislation is in place.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the answer for which I was looking. The amendment was merely a probing amendment. Can he confirm that he will be willing to have such meetings with parties that are willing to make that contribution within, say, the next eight weeks? I ask for that because it has taken us a very long time to get from the original correspondence to a situation where the Government are expressly accepting that some things may need to change.

David Hanson: I am happy to have discussions with the parties. I would not wish, for my benefit, to put a time scale on them at this stagecontradictory as that may seem. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as dealing with legislation and other matters, we are running Departments in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Office therefore has a heavy work load. I will consider the issues and we will hold discussions. However, on the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment No. 1 to a Division.
	I am grateful for the debate, which was helpful, but I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, North will withdraw his amendment.

Nigel Dodds: I have listened carefully to the Minister's response. I am grateful for his recognition that the IMC report shows work in progress by the IRA. When we listened to some press reports and comments before it was released, it appeared to some of us that there was an attempt to spin it to suggest that no Unionist could now use the IRA as an excuse in the context of restoring devolved Government. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) was right to say that it is essential to examine the IMC report carefully in the round.
	It is clear that progress has been made. As we said yesterday, we believe that the Democratic Unionist party can claim much credit for that. Before our position became the dominant one in Unionism, there was a view that the way to get the IRA away from violence was to bring it in and let the violence, drug dealing, intimidation and racketeering continue because being in government and having access to power would gradually wean it from all that. In fact, it had power and continued with its violence, racketeering and so on. We have made it clear that there must be an end to all that before the IRA can access power or authority. That strategy is working. Let us continue to keep up the pressure.
	The Minister signally failed to answer the question of what was so magical about the deadline of 24 November. He did not provide one reason or argument to persuade people that the process would be complete by 24 November. No one can say when it will be completed. We all hope and pray, for the good of the people of Northern Ireland, that it will be completed sooner rather than later, but how have the Government arrived at the date of 24 November? No one can say that the IRA will have completed the transformation by that date. We therefore believe that it is wrong to pull down the curtain on the prospects of restoring devolution simply because the IRA may not have fulfilled the necessary conditions to allow Sinn Fein to be part of an Executive in Northern Ireland.
	The debate has been useful and we shall not press amendment No. 14 to a Division. Although we believe that it would be useful to include such a provision in the Bill, and we will take account of it along with several other issues when those matters are decided, we will not press it today. However, we shall press amendment No. 10, which covers the deadline, to a Division, for the reasons that I have enunciated. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and his colleagues. We hope that as many hon. Members as possible can join us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 64, Noes 256.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	  
	Power to make consequential provision etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alan Reid: I have serious worries about the sweeping dictatorial powers that the clause seems to give the Secretary of State. I want to know why he believes the powers are necessary, and I should like him to give examples of occasions on which he would need to use them.
	The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make, by order,
	any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision
	and
	any transitional or saving provision
	that he considers expedient. Clause 4 states that the powers in clause 3 are exercisable by affirmative resolution unless the Secretary of State considers it expedient to pass the orders by negative resolution.
	In other words, if the Secretary of State considers it expedient, he can do anything that he likes. He can amend Acts of Parliament without Parliament having to vote. Before we give the Secretary of State those broad powers, we expect an explanation and some examples of the occasions on which he intends to use them.

David Lidington: I hope that the Minister can give us a few assurances. I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and, when I first read the clause, I shared some of his concerns. I hope the Minister will be able to say that the enabling powers given to the Secretary of State are circumscribed by reference to the purposes of the Bill, and also that they would lapse in any case in line with the time limit in the Bill.

David Hanson: As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make orders in relation to matters arising as a result of things done under the Bill. It is intended to be used to sweep up any consequential or unforeseen matters relating to, particularly, the recall of the Assembly, the repeal of the 2000 Act, the postponement of elections or the dissolution of the Assembly.
	For reasons that I hope are understood by both the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, the Bill was put together in some haste following the decision of the Prime Minister and the Government to adopt this route. Changes may well be needed that would require primary legislation unless we gave the Secretary of State this power. The power is focused and not meant to have a widespread application. The Bill is short and concise and, in any event, the level of detail required in an order made under clause 3 is not suitable for inclusion in  primary legislation. In case there is any misunderstanding, I can assure Members that clause 3 cannot be used to effect changes to, for example, the operation of the institutions as envisaged under the comprehensive agreement of December 2004.

Nigel Dodds: Are any of the changes that the Minister might introduce under clause 3 subject to a resolution of either House, or can they be made simply by Executive order?

David Hanson: In this instance, these are delegated orders for the Secretary of State. As I said, the power applies to particular matters relating to the Bill; it does not have a wider application.

Lembit �pik: To save time, can the Minister assure me now that our understanding that the Assembly will be entitled to amend and repeal legislation passed during the period of the Assembly's suspension is correct? It would be useful if he could put that on the record.

David Hanson: To return first to the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), such changes will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House; I hope that that is helpful. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), the Assembly can deal with any relevant related matters once it is up and running and has Executive functions, because such functions will relate to matters pertaining to the Assembly's areas of responsibility.
	I point out to all four Members who raised issues relating to clause 3 that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of another place has examined it. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute knows, the Committee takes a keen interest in these matters, so if we tried to pull a fast oneas the colloquial phrase has itit would notice. The Committee's report, available today, points out that the powers in the clause are acceptable, and that another place accepts the principle behind it and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny provided for in clause 4, in accordance with the Committee's views on such powers.
	I hope that, in the light of those points, I have reassured the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Argyll and Bute and for Belfast, North. I look forward to their support for the clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
	  
	Parliamentary procedure for Orders under Section 3

Lady Hermon: As I have already put on the record my deep distaste and dislike for, and my disapproval of, giving unfettered powers to the Secretary of State through this Bill, it is not my wish to move amendment No. 19.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1
	  
	The Assembly

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 5, line 20, at end insert
	'Assembly control of Orders in Council
	7 Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the 2000 Act is replaced by
	Parliamentary and Assembly control of Orders in Council
	2(1) Except where sub-paragraph (2) applies, an Order in Council may not be made under paragraph 1(1) unless each of the following conditions is met
	(a) Condition 1 is that a draft of the Order has been referred under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 to the Assembly;
	(b) Condition 2 is that a meeting of the Assembly has taken place at which it has had the opportunity to consider the draft of the Order;
	(c) Condition 3 is that the Assembly at that meeting has not expressed by resolution passed with cross-community support its opposition to the draft of the Order;
	(d) Condition 4 is that the draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(2) This sub-paragraph applies where the Order declares that the Secretary of State has advised Her Majesty that because of the urgency of the matter it is necessary to make the Order without meeting any of the conditions in sub-paragraph (1).
	(3) Where an Order contains a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) it
	(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and
	(b) ceases to have effect if it is not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of the relevant period.
	(4) Where an Order contains a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) it
	(a) must be referred to the Assembly under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 after being made; and
	(b) ceases to have effect if before the end of the relevant period
	(i) the Assembly has not had an opportunity to consider the Order; or
	(ii) the Assembly has passed a resolution with cross community support expressing its opposition to the Order.
	(5) But sub-paragraphs (3)(b) and (4)(b) do not prejudice
	(a) anything done under the Order before it ceased to have effect; or
	(b) the making of a new Order.
	(6) In this paragraph
	the Assembly means the Assembly referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2006; the relevant period means the period of 40 days beginning with the date on which the Order is made.'.[Mark Durkan.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 51, Noes 234.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2
	  
	Selection of Ministers

Lady Hermon: I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to know that it is not my intention to move amendment No. 28.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill:

Lembit �pik: I have one question: to clarify what the Minister said before about the Assembly's ability to modify legislation

David Lidington: That is in schedule 3.

Lembit �pik: I think that it is to do with schedule 3. I am sorry, Mrs. Heal, to detain the Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for putting me right.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3
	  
	No selection of Ministers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill:

Lembit �pik: I have been thrown into confusion, because I believe that my question relates to schedule 2 after all[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I could not hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

Lembit �pik: The point still stands, despite the sneaky Tory trick to get me confused. I want the Minister to clarify one important point. In fairness, thanks to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who did some considerable research into the matter, our understanding is that that the reconstituted Assembly would be entitled to modify or repeal any legislation that has been passed, including during suspension. I raise that matter because of a previous suggestion that the Assembly could not alter, modify or repeal legislation that has been passed by Order in Council during suspension. Our understandingI believe that it is that of the hon. Member for Aylesburyis that the Assembly is not fettered in that way. It is free to modify any of that legislation. That is important because it is extremely clear to me that we need clarity in the debate and on the record in Hansard, so that there can be no dispute about this matter when the Assembly seeks to modify legislation.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for speaking to both schedule 2 and, indeed, schedule 3. I assure him that, when the Assembly is fully restoredI emphasise the words fully restoredwith an Executive, a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and its full legislative powers, it can obviously have locus in any matter to do with its responsibilities and it can pass any matter that it wishes. I cannot fetter that potential legislative Assembly in the future by orders that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or I pass now. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and that, with that, he will accept schedule 3.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
	I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. All the contributions have been very positive. The way in which the Bill has gone through the House has been an indication and a signal of where Northern Ireland can go in the future. I commend the Bill to the House and hope that all the politicians in the political parties in Northern Ireland will work together to deliver the opportunity that the Bill provides for self-governance in Northern Ireland again.

David Lidington: What has been striking about the debate has been the clear readiness on the part of all three of the Northern Ireland parties that take their seats in this House to put the dreadful events of the past behind them, however difficult that step may be, and to look to the future. I hope that, with the passage of this Bill, the remaining major party that has, as yet, refused to take its seats in this House will now accept that it must come and take part and accept the same democratic, peaceful nature of politics that is accepted by all other parties here from Northern Ireland constituencies.

Alan Reid: The Liberal Democrats, too, support the Bill and we are pleased that we have reached Third Reading. The only disappointment is that the Government rejected amendment No. 6. Given that all the Northern Ireland parties that are represented in the House supported it, I hope that the Government will think again and, in another place, will table that amendment or something similar. That was the shared will of the Northern Ireland parties and we hope that the Government will give effect to that. The Government have set a deadline of 24 November, which we support. There must be no moving away from that deadline. I hope that the Government will emphasise that that definitely is a deadline.

Eddie McGrady: I welcome the introduction of the Bill and the fact that we are completing its Third Reading. I hope that the tenor of the Bill and of the debate in the Chamber today and yesterday, which showed what happens when there is a willingness to work forward together, sometimes with a sense of humourperhaps that was absent in the pastwill continue. If we bring that to the round-table conferences that we will be having over the next few months, I sincerely hope, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, that we can have a new future and a new beginning based on that total trust that we can have in one another. If we fail, it will be because some parties have put party interests before people. I hope that, in this case, the people win and that we carve out the new beginning in Northern Ireland for which we have striven for nearly 40 years. It would be a wonderful achievement if we could do that, not by 24 November, but before the summer recess, because I think that that is possible.

Nigel Dodds: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Yesterday we entered into what I think was a time-sharing arrangement. I would certainly be happy to go even further and enter into a power-sharing arrangement with the hon. Gentleman and his party as soon as possible, even before the summer recess. Certainly we have had a very good debate over the past few days.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, we are a devolutionist party. We want devolution. We have challenges ahead of us, but we are determined to try to meet those challenges. We go into this new Assembly in a positive mode. We are glad of the opportunity to debate issues of relevance to the people of Northern Ireland and we hope that we can get full restoration, but there are conditions. The IRA and Sinn Fein must become a fully democratic party. I think that Ministers have recognised that in the debate. We look forward to completing the road that we are now on.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will all hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so as quickly and quietly as possible?

FREEMEN OF BEVERLEY AND THE BEVERLEY PASTURE MASTERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Coaker.]

Graham Stuart: It is a great pleasure to stand in the Chamber and talk about an issue that is of great importance to the people of Beverley: the Freemen of Beverley and the Beverley pasture masters. I plan to speak first about the considerable history of the Beverley pasture masters, move on to the threat to their existence and conclude by discussing how we can ensure that the ancient tradition can be preserved.
	As hon. Members may be aware, the town of Beverley is fortunate enough to have some beautiful common land. It is a source of great pride to Beverley residents, and people travel great distances to enjoy it. There are three common pastures in the town: Beverley Westwood, Figham and Swinemoor. Of those, Beverley Westwood is the largest, at more than 600 acres. It was granted to the Beverley freemen in 1380 by the Archbishop of York, Alexander Neville, for the sum of 5. Most people who have visited it would consider that to be money well spent. It is a magnificent landmark for the town and has some interesting history.
	As the name suggests, there was once a substantial number of trees on the Westwood. They were frequently felled to provide money for the town and to increase the acreage available for grazing stock. In 1584, the corporation sold more than 1,000 trees, primarily oak and ash. However, new plantations have been established and the replanting of trees is an integral part of the management of the pasture. The Westwood also has a surviving 19th century mill. In 1853, a look at the ordnance survey map would have shown that five corn windmills were in use at that time, and three still exist in part. The tower of one of them, Black Mill, which was built in 1803, is a prominent local landmark.
	The Beverley pasture masters are responsible for managing the three common pastures in Beverley. That has been the case since 1836, when the Beverley freemen, concerned that the recently established local council would not look after the pastures properly, petitioned MPs in the hope of establishing a new law that would guarantee independence for the pastures from local government control. They and other freemen from throughout the country were successful. An Act of Parliament, the pasture Act, which made provision for the annual election of pasture masters by the pasture freemen was duly passed. The election is held on 1 March each year and allows for a body of 12 pasture masters to be voted in from among the pasture freemen.
	The pasture Act ensured that the common pastures had total independence from local government decision making. No part of the common land can be disposed of for building or any other purposes. The pasture masters also have the power to pass byelaws to ensure better management of the land. As a result, the unique character of the landscape has not been lost.
	However, the pasture masters are under threat. To be admitted as a freeman, one must either be born as the son of an existing freeman, or qualify by servitude. If one serves as an apprentice under a freeman, one can apply to be admitted as a freeman. However, the number of apprenticeships has declined rapidly in recent years and the craftsmen offering them frequently now tend not to be freemen.
	We are thus left with qualification by birth. To become a freeman of Beverley in that way, one must be born as the son of an existing freeman. Daughters are excluded. One must also be born in the town of Beverley itself. That is fast becoming a problem. In the 19th century, when the tradition of the pasture masters began, people remained in the same town or village for a lifetime. Generations of one family could be found in one place, which meant that the son of a freeman was almost always born in Beverley itself. Today, however, there is greater mobility. Freemen have left Beverley and their children have been born outside the town, so the chain has been broken. The dilemma was compounded nine years ago when the town's maternity hospital was closed. The only people born in Beverley are those who are born at home.
	There are now just 100 freemen left in the town. Of those, more than half are in their 50s and 60s, and many are in no shape to begin childrearing again. The situation has become so serious that last year, Neil Walker, a Beverley freeman, and his wife decided that they would have a home birth for their unborn baby. That was a conscious decision, made in order to ensure that a son was born in the town. Luckily, the newborn child was indeed a boy. However, even now there is no guarantee that the son will want to remain in Beverley for the rest of his life. There is certainly no guarantee that he will want to be a pasture master. There is, therefore, the very real danger that this ancient body will literally die out unless action is taken. That would be devastating for the town of Beverley.
	What can be done? Essentially, the problem is down to discrimination against daughters and the requirement that freemen are born in the town itself. The dilemma is not exclusive to Beverley. Many towns and villages up and down the country are affected by that ancient anomaly. What steps have been taken to reverse the injustice? The Minister may be aware that a private Member's Bill, the Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill, is before the House. It would give the daughters of people made freemen of a town the same rights of succession as their male siblings. It would also remove any requirement limiting admission to the freedom of persons born within a borough's boundaries, meaning that if a freeman moves away from a relevant borough, his son or daughter could still claim succession even though they were born outside the boundaries.
	The Bill has had a tumultuous time in both Houses. It was introduced by Lord Mustill in the other place, first appearing in the 200001 Session. It did not progress beyond First Reading. Lord Mustill tried again the following year. This time, the Bill did progress through the House of Lords, and was taken up by the then right hon. Member for South-West Surrey, Virginia Bottomley. However, it did not survive the end of the Session. Fast forward a couple of years to the 200405 Session and a new version was taken up in the other place by Lord Graham of Edmonton. It progressed safely through the House of Lords, and was sponsored in this House by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins).
	However, the Bill has now reached a crossroad. Despite sailing through its First Reading, it has stalled at Second Reading, which it has been due to receive on three separate occasions, most recently on 17 March. Each time it has been a long way down the list of Bills to be read, and there has not been enough time for full parliamentary debate. Second Reading has been deferred to 20 October, when again it is likely to be delayed.
	We therefore have to accept that in all likelihood the Bill will fail. That would be desperately disappointing to the people of Beverley, and to the pasture masters and freemen themselves. They have pinned their hopes on its success. Chris Thompson, chairman of the Beverley pasture masters, said recently:
	We are running out of freemen. We are down to about 100, which includes 12 pasture masters. We are relying on the Bill to change that situation.
	The Beverley freemen have been trying for five years now to let women, as well as those born outside the town, join their ranks, but to do so requires a change in legislation. I want to pay tribute to the region's mediathe Beverley Guardian, the East Riding Mail and the local BBC, all of which have kept a strong focus on the issue and kept it high on the local agenda.
	I do not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should like the Minister to bear in mind that the issue is not contentious. A change in legislation has wide cross-party support, both in this House and in the other place. Government support would be gratefully received, not just in Beverley, but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central and across the country. I am aware that Members are not supposed to use an Adjournment debate to call for Government legislation on a particular subject, so I shall hesitate from doing so, but if Ministers were able to find a way of rectifying the problemperhaps by thinking of a creative way to append it to a major Government Bill at some pointthey would be doing a great service to that ancient institution of freemen.
	As Lord Graham of Edmonton articulated in the other place in July last year, the freemen are of great sentimental importance to a town. That is certainly the case in Beverley. They are identified with the local community in a way that is much more intimate, continuous and long standing than the exercise of local government franchise or election to local councils. It is a joy in this age to find people who have such a strong allegiance to their community. However, the significance of the freemen is not just ceremonial or sentimental. In Beverley's case, they are responsible for preserving over 1,000 acres of common landscape. It would be a devastating blow to the town if they were to die out. They have been part of Beverley life for hundreds of years. I hopeindeed, I knowthat the Minister will bear that in mind when summing up.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) on securing this afternoon's Adjournment debate and on raising an issue of importance not only to the Freemen of Beverley, but to other Guilds of Freemen who similarly want to change their rules of admission. I have read the press releases that the hon. Gentleman issued in advance of the debate. The matter is clearly of concern to him and his constituents.
	I shall keep my response to the debate very short. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from my remarks and not regard their brevity as in any way lessening the significance of his contribution or of the issue raised by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins).
	As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, my hon. Friend, whom I am pleased to see in his place, is sponsoring a Billthe Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Billwhich would allow the title to pass to daughters of freemen. Like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise that the procedures for private Members' Bills are such that there is some uncertainty, to say the least, about whether the Bill will make it to the statute book. Having been a Government Whip with some responsibility for private Members' business over a number of years, I know how delicate private Members' Bills can be.
	I must say, in honesty and fairness, that having asked my officials to examine the Bill, the Government have grave doubts about whether, as drafted, it would achieve its purpose. As the hon. Gentleman noted, private Members' Bills must overcome considerable obstacles to become legislation, and Government opposition, whether on principle, political or technical, will always prove to be a major hurdle. Nevertheless, we have considerable sympathy with the Bill's objective. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that, if and when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself, we will consider providing for Guilds of Freemen to amend their rights of admission locally.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the Minister. Will he agree to meet me and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central to discuss such opportunities?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am happy to accede to that request. Were the hon. Gentleman to seek a discussion, we could explore the technical deficiencies in the Bill, as we see them, and the possibility of moving the matter forward in due course.

Jim Cousins: Will my hon. Friend consider whether, if an appropriate amendment could be drafted, the Commons Bill before the House as Government legislation might provide an opportunity to consider these matters?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not in a position to give an affirmative response to my hon. Friend. I will take the matter back to the Department and ask officials to examine whether the Commons Bill might be an appropriate vehicle. I do not have that information to hand. Were he and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness to seek a meeting, we could clarify the matter.

Jim Cousins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Given the timetable of the Commons Bill, that obviously means that for any meeting with him, time would be pressing.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I do not want to build up hopes among colleagues that there may a way of delivering their ambitions by short-circuiting the legislative process. I do not want to give any false hope that we could expedite the inclusion of relevant provisions in the Commons Bill. I said that the Government were sympathetic to the objective and that we would look for a suitable vehicle. However, such an opportunity may not be forthcoming. I am happy to look at the issue and explore it with colleagues because, as I said, we are sympathetic to their objective of enabling the Freemen of Beverley and others like them to change their rights of succession if they wish to do so.
	With that assurance, I again congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness on raising an issue of great importance to Guilds of Freemen around the country. In doing so, he has provided the House with a flavour of the history and traditions of one of our oldest institutions. I sincerely hope that progress can be made. I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen who have pressed the issue, both in this debate and in a private Member's Bill, will do all that they can to ensure that their endeavours are successful.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Six o'clock.